Commentary on Judicial Appointments

The New York Times published an editorial yesterday, discussing a letter sent to President Obama by Senate Republicans regarding his judicial appointments.  They found troubling the Republican's threat to filibuster Obama's picks, before even having a chance to evaluate the candidates on their merits.   Furthermore, they insisted that Obama begin by "appointing holdover Bush nominees who were never confirmed by the Senate."  (The President is under no obligation to do so).

What makes this episode all the more entertaining is the juxtaposition of the Republican's behavior when Bush was in this position.  They said that filibusters, “mired the judicial-confirmation process in a political and constitutional crisis that undermines democracy, the judiciary, the Senate, and the Constitution.”  And, they apparently threatened to change the rules if the Democrats interfered.  (If anyone knows more about this, please let me know.  I'll be looking for more info soon...).  They also request a return to the "blue slip" tradition, where a Senator gets to approve of judges going to his/her state - a tradition with no Constitutional backing, which had been conveniently abandoned during the Bush years.  

This is a topic near to my heart.  I watched with some anguish as Bush appointed people of questionable talent and quality to hold powerful federal judgeships.  While I often have ideological qualms and quibbles with judges (read Scalia), I can at least respect their intelligence and ability.  However, we also watched as Harriet Myers was nominated for the Supreme Court.  Thankfully, both sides of the aisle were displeased with this selection, and it went down in flames.  The reasoning was directed at her lack of judicial experience and perceived lack of intellectual rigor.  If these were the only grounds on which judicial nominees were evaluated, I would be somewhat more comfortable.  However, my fear is that Republican Senators will feel inclined to object to appointments based on ideological areas of disagreement. 

I hope this is not the case.  There is a need for a balanced federal judiciary in this country.  While you can disagree with particular positions of certain judges, the balance in the system helps to ensure a (relatively) fair and just result.  While a political party might like to have the courts entirely packed with their top choices, this would be folly.  The health and stability of the United States government is largely dependent on the checks and balances built in.  This same kind of process is at work within the judiciary, though not as explicitly laid out.  By having judges of differing ideas, temperment and political leanings serving in various jurisdicitons around the country, we guarantee that there will be a tension in the system that will keep our jurists on their toes.  

The courts are an intellectual battlefield, and the judges are the ones who decide the outcome.  For that reason, they need to best and the brightest people available.  I hope that this is the evaluation they receive: Do you have an intelligent, analytical, even-handed approach to the law?

How would you evaluate a federal judicial nominee?