Legislative Index:

Judicial Branch Politicization: Judge Bork and Ideology in the Confirmation of Federal Judges

By Sam Batkins: This paper examines the evolving role of ideology in the federal judicial confirmation process. While the founders initially only mentioned merit as the most prominent factor for the successful confirmation of federal judges, over the course of the past century, the
perceived jurisprudence of a nominee has received greater attention. This culminated in the polemical confirmation process of Judge Robert Bork, whose nomination was defeated solely due to jurisprudential concerns. I argue the imposition of an ideological litmus test belies the history of the process, and the intentions of our founders. Finally, I argue that the continued filibuster of well-qualified nominees tarnishes civility in the Senate, the nominees, and the constitution itself....[more]

Counting the Cloture Votes: Analyzing Senators’ Support for Judicial Nomination Filibusters

By Thomas L. Jipping: In the days prior to adjourning for its August 2003 recess, the U.S. Senate voted against ending debate on three nominations to the U.S. Courts of Appeal. Some say these filibusters, and the others said to be coming in the months ahead, are part of an unprecedented Democrat-led obstruction campaign. But Democrats say Republicans have done the same thing in the past. These competing claims, and the certainty that efforts to end judicial nomination filibusters will continue when the Senate returns in September, make this a good time objectively to examine the historical record...[more]

Estrada’s Answers are Consistent with Judges who Sailed through Senate Confirmation

On May 9, 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  After more than two years in limbo, hours upon hours of debate on the Senate floor, and a historically unprecedented six failed cloture votes, a partisan minority in the Senate continues to block a simple up-or-down vote on Mr. Estrada’s nomination, preventing all 100 Senators from fulfilling their constitutional obligation to offer “advice and consent” in the judicial confirmation process.  Such obstructionist tactics on the part of some Senate Democrats have resulted in a federal judiciary plagued with a vacancy crisis and a confirmation process broken nearly beyond repair...[more]