It is difficult not to think of two words — lies and hypocrisy — when reviewing the promises and foot dragging on President Bush’s judicial nominees by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont. These two senators have arbitrarily blocked scores of qualified nominees without even giving them the courtesy of a committee vote.
The latest outrage came when the Senate adjourned for Memorial Day without abiding by Reid’s April 15 commitment to “to get three judges approved for our circuit [courts] before the Memorial Day recess” while suggesting that “we may even get lucky and get more than that [because] we have a number of people from whom to choose.” Instead of three or more confirmations, Reid and Leahy allowedonly one. None of the others even received committee consideration, much less a full Senate vote. There are thieves who have displayed more honor than the majority leader has on this issue.
Recommended Stories
As for Leahy, he is becoming infamous for ignoring his own stated standards for judicial nominations. Leahy has said American Bar Association ratings are “the Gold Standard by which judicial candidates are judged,” but now he is denying committee votes to nominees unanimously given the ABA’s highest rating. He has said repeatedly that the most consideration is owed to nominees supported by both senators of the nominees’ home states, but he is denying committee consideration to two such nominees right now. One of them has waited more than 300 days. Leahy has said all judicial nominees deserve up or down votes, and that filibusters of judicial nominees were “improper.” Since saying that, however, he has helped lead multiple filibusters and is denying some nominees even a committee hearing, much less a vote. Other examples of Leahy’s self-contradictions abound — contradictions which, if displayed by a Bush judicial nominee, would certainly be grounds enough for Leahy himself to vote the nomination down.
This year, the Senate has confirmed only two appeals court nominees, despite the fact several appeals courts are so undermanned that they are officially rated as “judicial emergencies.” Yet Leahy’s only explanation for his inaction has been a recitation of old scores to settle. His obstructionism abandons statesmanship in favor of schoolyard games of revenge. In combination with Reid breaking his word, Leahy’s stances mean that justice and even common decency forjudicial nominees in the Senate have been locked in a dungeon, without cause or
warrant.
