The Battle Over Federal Judges: Why is it so Important?
Current newspaper accounts of the political battles in Congress over judicial appointments are full of unfamiliar terms such as: filibuster, cloture, up or down vote, and nuclear option. What do they mean?.
Articles within this series
- Overview
- The Battle Over Federal Judges: Why is it so Important?
- The Battle Over Federal Judges: What is a Filibuster?
- Next Steps / Related Information
In 2004, President Bush campaigned on the importance of federal judicial appointments and their critical importance for the future of America. The possibility of one or more Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years only heightens the urgency of this issue. Current newspaper accounts of the political battles in Congress over judicial appointments are full of unfamiliar terms such as: “filibuster,” “cloture,” “up or down vote,” and “nuclear option.” Let’s try to clear up the confusion and answer some basic questions about this important subject.
Q. Why has President Bush made the selection of federal judges such an important issue?
A. Over the past 60 years, the Supreme Court has gradually shifted from its constitutional mandate of interpreting the law to actively legislating from the bench, bypassing the legitimate function of the Congress and state legislatures. The Supreme Court, urged on by the ACLU, the American Bar Association and other liberal special interest groups, has created many so-called “privacy rights” out of thin air and then mandated new social policies, such as the right to abortion, the right to homosexual sex, the right to publish pornography, as well as trampling on our First Amendment religious freedoms.
This type of activism (indeed, judicial legislation) by unelected and unaccountable judges was never contemplated by our Founding Fathers, and its sorry legacy has weighed heavily on all of us concerned about sanctity of life and marriage, states’ rights, separation of powers, and religious freedoms. The only way to reverse this unconstitutional and ungodly trend is to appoint judges whose judicial philosophy is the same as that intended by the Founding Fathers. Liberals, justifiably afraid of attempting such extreme social change through the legislative process, unabashedly oppose any change in the judicial juggernaut they have created to bypass the will of the majority.
The result? President Bush’s nominations to the Circuit Courts of Appeals (the federal courts just below the Supreme Court) during his first term touched off unprecedented obstructionism and filibusters in the Senate as the Democratic minority desperately resisted any correction to the course on which activist courts have placed us.
Q. What is the process for appointing a Supreme Court justice or other federal judge?
A. Our Constitution grants the authority for appointing federal judges to the president, but also gives the Senate the duty to “advise and consent” to the appointment, as a check on the president’s power. First, the president nominates a qualified person for a judicial opening. Next, the Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings on each nominee and then, if approved by a majority vote of the committee, the nomination goes to the full Senate.
Sometimes, as in the case of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, the nominations end up going to the full Senate even though the committee voted down the nomination. If and when a nomination gets sent to the full Senate, it then debates the nomination and then, by majority vote (sometimes called an “up or down vote”), either approves or rejects the nomination. If approved, the nominee is then sworn in and takes his position on the court to which he was nominated.