LEXIS-NEXIS® Academic
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
March 25, 2002, Monday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 20; Column 1; Editorial Desk
LENGTH: 594 words
HEADLINE: The
Politics of Judgeships
BODY:
Since the rejection earlier this month of Judge Charles Pickering for the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, senators and White House officials have
dwelled on old grievances. Trent Lott, the Senate minority leader, has
threatened retaliation. Democrats are slow-walking other nominations because
they do not relish another fight. Meanwhile, President Bush's top political
adviser told a conservative religious group that Mr. Bush would keep selecting
conservative ideologues for the bench.
It is perhaps inevitable that showdowns over judgeships, which involve
individuals, create more bitterness than those over legislation. The
disagreements can seem personal even when they are not. What is therefore
urgently needed is a commitment to procedures that accommodate both sides, and
an agreement to avoid ideological court-packing in the judicial selection
process.
Senator Orrin Hatch has charged that a
"Circuit Court vacancy crisis" has resulted from the Senate's failure to schedule hearings on 8 of President
Bush's first 11 choices for the Appellate Division, and that no progress is
being made to fill the empty slots. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary
Committee chairman, says the vacancies actually result from the stalling by
Republicans that prevented President Bill Clinton's choices for the Appellate
Division from being approved.
Mr. Leahy is, in fact, more right than Mr. Hatch on this. At least Mr. Bush's
choices are going through a hearing process, albeit a slow one in some cases.
Dozens of Mr. Clinton's nominees were not even given the courtesy of a hearing
or a vote, and the delays on judges, especially at the appellate level, were
much worse in that period than they are now.
Nonetheless, stalling by the Democratic-controlled committee is not the answer.
The Judiciary Committee needs to act promptly on the nomination of candidates
who have won acceptance as moderates and people of judicial stature and
temperament. The current Senate has in fact compiled an excellent record of
approving such judges at the district level. This can produce its own dangers
-- when a district bench nominee is less than qualified, he or she must be
scrutinized and rejected, and that can take time. On the appellate level, the
committee must continue with its deliberate practice of processing the nominees
with hearings and background checks, and then arranging for an up-or-down vote
in the Judiciary Committee.
The Bush administration and the Republican leadership in the Senate
must take seriously the Democrats' demand for more mainstream nominees.
Recently Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political aide, dismissed that idea by
telling a conservative religious group, according to The Washington Post:
"Guess what? They sent the wrong message to the wrong guy." Mr. Rove may
have forgotten, but Mr. Bush was the guy who ran for president as a uniter,
not a divider. Many of his judicial nominations remain troubling, and divisive,
just as Judge Pickering was, from the standpoint of their records in protecting
mainstream rights. Mr. Bush also said recently that he favored judges who
would not make new law but simply interpret the law.
The Senate should apply that standard across the board, including the tendency
of some judges to strike down laws on gun control or worker safety. It is time
for the White House to define its legacy as working to establish a judiciary
that wins the broad respect of the center and is not appointed to curry favor
with the right-wing ideology of the few.
http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: March 25, 2002