Commentaries on Judicial Nominations
May, 2005
Judiciary Committee pushes back vote on Pryor
By Jeffrey McMurray
Associated Press WriterIt'll be at least two more weeks before former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor clears his next hurdle to winning a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.
The Senate Judiciary Committee had scheduled a vote Thursday on Pryor's nomination, but the panel got tied up working on asbestos legislation and rescheduled the vote.
Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., promised Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions that Pryor's nomination would be first on the agenda at the committee's next meeting, likely May 12.
"I'm glad Chairman Specter agreed to do this," said Sessions, a Republican. "Judge Pryor has been performing admirably, and I believe we need to move forward with this."
President Bush placed Pryor on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last year as a recess appointment, but he must be confirmed by the Senate before the end of the year for the appointment to become permanent.
Although he enjoys support from a majority in the Senate, Pryor is one of a handful of judicial nominees Democrats are filibustering, essentially blocking a floor vote. They complain his positions on abortion and gay rights might not allow him to be objective as a judge.
Alabama native Janice Rogers Brown, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, has already won support from the Judiciary Committee, but her confirmation is being stalled on the Senate floor by the filibuster.
Republicans have threatened to deny Democrats the right to filibuster nominees, and Democrats have countered they'll shut down the Senate if that happens. It's not clear whether Pryor would be one of the appointments to spark that battle over Senate procedure, but Brown almost surely will be.
Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., offered to end the conflict by allowing Democrats 100 hours to debate each of the appellate court choices, provided they ultimately get a confirmation vote. Democrats signaled the offer wasn't good enough.
No more stalling
Senate should vote Judge Boyle's nomination up or down
The Charlotte Observer
Apr. 28, 2005U.S. Chief District Judge Terrence Boyle of Edenton deserves a vote in the U.S. Senate on his nomination for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. Judge Boyle may not be the ideal judicial nominee, but he is ferociously independent and a workhorse jurist who often knows more about a case than the lawyers who argue in his courtroom. We believe these qualities have earned him the right to a Senate vote.
It's not clear whether Judge Boyle will get his day in that court. A federal judge for 21 years, he has been nominated for the 4th Circuit three times -- first by former President George H.W. Bush and twice more by the current President Bush. In each case, his nomination has run afoul of those who do not agree with his rulings, and perhaps more telling, with those who do not agree with his strongest backers. Judge Boyle worked briefly for former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., a conservative lightning rod who nominated him for his Eastern District judgeship.
Judge Boyle also has encountered opposition from Democrats who recall Sen. Helms' blocking of nominees they favored, including U.S. District Judge James Beaty of Winston-Salem. This political tit-for-tat serves no one's interests. It has kept North Carolina judges off the 4th Circuit Court and blocked district court appointments, too.
Not even Judge Boyle's strongest defenders argue he has a perfect judicial record. Many of his decisions have been reversed on appeal -- partly a consequence of his having written thousands of opinions since he became a judge in 1984. Critics say he is insensitive to the needs of the disabled and has ruled incorrectly in civil rights and employment discrimination cases. They cite the Supreme Court's 1999 and 2001 reversals of his participation in a three-judge panel's decisions striking down the North Carolinia's 12th Congressional District as examples of his judicial errors.
But Judge Boyle should also be judged on his decisions in other important cases. In a case involving a copy of the Bill of Rights taken from the state Capitol at the end of the Civil War, Judge Boyle ruled that it belongs to the state of North Carolina and not to speculators who purchased it in hopes of making a ton.
He also has issued important environmental rulings, upholding the reintroduction of the red wolf in Eastern North Carolina, sustaining important laws protecting wetlands, and halting the Navy's fatally flawed and poorly documented plan to put a jet landing field next to the nation's most important migratory waterfowl refuge.
Judge Boyle's service is long and his record is mixed, but he has sat on the appellate bench on individual cases and has proved to be a fair-minded judge who works hard to understand the issues. It was wrong for Republicans to hold nominations hostage and it's wrong for the Democrats, too. Judge Boyle deserves a Senate vote, up or down, on his nomination.
EDITORIAL
End stalemate Our position: In the fight over Bush's judicial nominees, both parties need to bend.Orlando Sentinel
April 28, 2005For weeks, liberal and conservative interest groups have been marching U.S. senators toward a showdown over a dozen of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Instead of taking their orders from such groups, senators need to do what their body is famous for: compromise.
Mr. Bush renominated the 12 federal appeals-court candidates after Senate Democrats blocked action on them in the last Congress. The liberal groups want Democrats to keep wielding the filibuster -- the threat of nonstop debate -- to block confirmation votes on the Senate floor for nominees the groups deem unacceptable. The conservative groups want Republicans to use their majority power to bar filibusters of any judicial nominees. If both parties stick to these positions, the Senate is headed for gridlock.
The Senate could break the impasse with a simple, reasonable compromise. Democrats would pledge not to use the filibuster on any of the disputed nominees. Republicans, in return, would promise to allow ample, but not unlimited, time for debate on each one.
If the president's nominees are as unfit as the liberal interest groups contend, Democrats should welcome the opportunity to make that case to their peers and the public in a debate on the Senate floor. Likewise, if the nominees are as well qualified as the conservative groups maintain, Republicans should be eager to defend them in a high-profile forum.
We believe senators should limit their opposition to judicial nominees they consider unqualified, rather than ones who don't pass political litmus tests on abortion or other controversial issues. Criteria for evaluating nominees' qualifications include their education, experience, legal judgment, impartiality and judicial temperament.
Based on these criteria, most of Mr. Bush's disputed nominees are worthy of confirmation. There are a couple of exceptions, however:
William Myers, a former Interior Department official and mining-industry lobbyist. He has limited courtroom experience, and his repeated clashes with environmental and American Indian groups kindle doubts about his impartiality.
William Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel. He wrote or supervised memos that made the legally suspect and dangerous claim that federal laws against torture did not apply to U.S. detainees in Guant namo Bay, Cuba or Iraq.
Supporters of two other nominees, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, need to account for their inflammatory public statements on legal issues that raise questions about their judgment. Backers of another nominee, Terrence Boyle, need to explain the high number of his judicial rulings overturned on appeal.
But whatever misgivings we have about any of these nominees, each deserves the full consideration that an open debate on the Senate floor, culminating in a vote, would provide.
N.C. judge's future part of national debate
By Ashley Simmons Staff Writer,
The Daily Tar Heel.
April 28, 2005A vote on the nomination of an N.C. judge to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals could spark trouble on the floor of the Senate.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote today on the nomination of conservative Terrence Boyle to the federal bench.
But Boyle, a judge for the eastern district of North Carolina, could be blocked in the Senate by a filibuster. Democrats already have attempted to block seven of President Bush's nominees using the tactic, which essentially allows a senator to stop the chamber's action, provided that at least 39 of his colleagues agree.
The conflict over Boyle's nomination is part of a larger one dealing with the use of the filibuster in the Senate. Republicans have considered changing chamber rules to prevent filibusters on judiciary nominees.
But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, issued a statement justifying the use of the filibuster in Boyle's case.
"Democrats have confirmed 95 percent of the president's judicial nominees," he said. "The 10 that were denied confirmation lack a commitment to the fundamental rights and liberties we hold so dear."
Marshall Manson, vice president of public affairs for the Center for Individual Freedom, a conservative think tank, said he wants to see the end of deliberate obstruction of judicial nominations based on ideology.
"We feel that all judicial nominees deserve a fair and simple up or down vote on the floor of the Senate," he said. "I would like to think that by taking these steps, we are restoring some of the good will that has been lost."
Opponents of his nomination believe his rulings undermine certain rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens, especially women, the disabled and minorities.
Nancy Zirkin, deputy director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said Boyle's appointment could devastate the black and Latino communities.
"(Boyle) has demonstrated a sustained hostility to civil rights," she said. "The 4th Circuit has more African Americans living within its boundaries than any other appellate circuit. It also has one of the fastest growing Latino populations. The people deserve better judicial representation."
But supporters claim this view to be a misinterpretation of Boyle's rulings. In a statement April 20, U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said Boyle could help the state gain power on the national appellate level.
"North Carolina is chronically underrepresented - or not represented at all - at the circuit court level," he said. "The people of eastern North Carolina and, indeed, all North Carolinians, deserve another voice on the 4th Circuit."
Legislators from both sides can agree to wanting a quick, quiet solution to the problem so the focus can shift to more pressing issues.
Reid said in a statement that he hopes the two parties can break the divisive "partisan stalemate."
While they do not share similar strategies, Republicans seem to agree.
"We should put aside the grievances that have prevented the consideration of judges and work together to find a solution," Burr said in his statement.
Opinion
The Charlotte ObserverNo more stalling
Senate should vote Judge Boyle's nomination up or down
Apr. 28, 2005U.S. Chief District Judge Terrence Boyle of Edenton deserves a vote in the U.S. Senate on his nomination for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. Judge Boyle may not be the ideal judicial nominee, but he is ferociously independent and a workhorse jurist who often knows more about a case than the lawyers who argue in his courtroom. We believe these qualities have earned him the right to a Senate vote.
It's not clear whether Judge Boyle will get his day in that court. A federal judge for 21 years, he has been nominated for the 4th Circuit three times -- first by former President George H.W. Bush and twice more by the current President Bush. In each case, his nomination has run afoul of those who do not agree with his rulings, and perhaps more telling, with those who do not agree with his strongest backers. Judge Boyle worked briefly for former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., a conservative lightning rod who nominated him for his Eastern District judgeship.
Judge Boyle also has encountered opposition from Democrats who recall Sen. Helms' blocking of nominees they favored, including U.S. District Judge James Beaty of Winston-Salem. This political tit-for-tat serves no one's interests. It has kept North Carolina judges off the 4th Circuit Court and blocked district court appointments, too.
Not even Judge Boyle's strongest defenders argue he has a perfect judicial record. Many of his decisions have been reversed on appeal -- partly a consequence of his having written thousands of opinions since he became a judge in 1984. Critics say he is insensitive to the needs of the disabled and has ruled incorrectly in civil rights and employment discrimination cases. They cite the Supreme Court's 1999 and 2001 reversals of his participation in a three-judge panel's decisions striking down the North Carolinia's 12th Congressional District as examples of his judicial errors.
But Judge Boyle should also be judged on his decisions in other important cases. In a case involving a copy of the Bill of Rights taken from the state Capitol at the end of the Civil War, Judge Boyle ruled that it belongs to the state of North Carolina and not to speculators who purchased it in hopes of making a ton.
He also has issued important environmental rulings, upholding the reintroduction of the red wolf in Eastern North Carolina, sustaining important laws protecting wetlands, and halting the Navy's fatally flawed and poorly documented plan to put a jet landing field next to the nation's most important migratory waterfowl refuge.
Judge Boyle's service is long and his record is mixed, but he has sat on the appellate bench on individual cases and has proved to be a fair-minded judge who works hard to understand the issues. It was wrong for Republicans to hold nominations hostage and it's wrong for the Democrats, too. Judge Boyle deserves a Senate vote, up or down, on his nomination.
Nominees deserve a vote
Filibuster prevents U.S. Senate from doing its constitutional dutyThe Charlotte Observer
From U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, a North Carolina Republican:The U.S. Senate has a constitutional obligation to evaluate and vote on judicial nominations submitted by the president. Republicans and Democrats have historically worked together to guarantee that every nominee on the Senate floor received an up or down vote. However, in 2003, a minority of Democrats incorporated the unprecedented use of the filibuster against the president's judicial nominees.
For the first time, a judicial nominee is being required to receive 60 votes instead of a majority vote, standing on its head a system that has been in place for 214 years. That is unprecedented, it is wrong, and it must end.
The president's nominees have all been rated qualified by the American Bar Association. Each has clear majority support, yet my Democratic colleagues refuse to allow the Senate to even vote on their nominations. They call the nominees "radical," "right wing" and "out of the mainstream," and require them to pass an unprecedented liberal litmus test.
Consider the nominations of two fine women jurists recently approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- Priscilla Owen of Texas and Janice Rogers Brown of California. Justice Owen received 84 percent of the vote in her election to the Texas Supreme Court and was endorsed by every major newspaper in Texas. Justice Brown received a 76 percent vote of approval from California voters in her election to the state Supreme Court. How is someone who receives this kind of support in California "radical?" Both were filibustered during the last Congress and Democrats have promised to do it again.
Today, the Judiciary Committee is expected to consider the nomination of Terrence Boyle to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He currently serves as a federal district court judge in North Carolina's eastern district and has waited 14 years for a vote in the Senate. Democrats are threatening to block his nomination as well. The same baseless smear tactics used against Brown and Owen are being levied against him.
Those of us who know Judge Boyle appreciate his intellect, even-handedness and record of distinguished service on the district court. A former North Carolina Democratic Party chair said, "I think he would happily rule against me and happily rule for me whether I'm a Republican or Democrat. I think he makes his decisions on the facts, and that's the best we could ever hope."
I believe Judge Boyle deserves to be confirmed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Most importantly, however, he deserves an up or down vote.
Let me be clear: Nobody is saying Democrats have to support President Bush's nominees; that goes for this president or any president. If my colleagues do not support a particular nominee, they are entitled to have their voices heard and vote against that nominee on the Senate floor. But they should not prevent the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty to "advise and consent" through the unprecedented use of the filibuster.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is exploring a number of procedural options to restore the Senate to its 214 years of tradition. One option he is considering was used, most notably, on four occasions by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a Democrat, when he was majority leader. Once this tradition is restored, the filibuster as a tool in the Senate will still be completely intact. This should not be a partisan issue, but an issue of fairness. Let's restore the Senate's constitutional responsibility and vote on these qualified nominees.
For The Record offers commentaries from various sources. The views are the writer's, and not necessarily those of the Observer editorial board.
Member Benefits | About AAPD | Join | Disability Resources | News | Contact Us | Calendar | Home