| |
 |
| April 10th, 2008 |
|
Media Contact(s): Mark Eddington or Jared Whitley (202) 224-5251 |
[  ] Listen to Radio Clip |
Printable Version |
[  ] Watch Television Clip |
HATCH UPBRAIDS DEMOCRATS FOR SANDBAGGING JUDICIAL NOMINEES
Approval Process Has Not Been This Slow Since Before Utah Was a Territory |
| |
|
|
| Sen. Hatch participates in a "pen and pad" briefing today on judges with fellow Senate Judiciary Committee members Arlen Specter and John Cornyn. |
Washington – In a speech on the Senate floor today, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) upbraided Senate Democrats for failure to move forward with approving Pres. Bush’s judicial nominees. This year only one federal appeals court judge has had a hearing, which is the worst standard for stalling on federal appeals court judges since 1848 – as Hatch said on the Senate floor “before Utah even became a territory.”
The full speech follows.
Statement of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch
Before the United states Senate Regarding Judicial Nominations
Mr. President, one of my colleagues was recently quoted as saying that facts are stubborn things.
The facts are that the majority has virtually shut down the judicial confirmation process.
Some say that the process always shuts down in a presidential election year, so I checked every one since I was first elected.
By today, April 10, in each of those presidential election years, the Judiciary Committee had held hearings for multiple appeals court nominees.
But this year, only one appeals court nominee has had a hearing, and there is not another one on the schedule.
The Judiciary Committee held no confirmation hearing at all last month, and last week’s hearing was yet another one with no appeals court nominee.
The facts are just as stubborn when we look at the entire 110th Congress.
Since I was first elected, there have been seven Congresses like this one that included a presidential election year.
During each of these presidential election Congresses, the Judiciary Committee held hearings for an average of 25 appeals court nominees.
But today, more than fifteen months into the 110th Congress, the Judiciary Committee has held a hearing for only five appeals court nominees.
This amounts to just one-fifth of the average for previous presidential election seasons.
If the partisan roles were reversed and the pace of hearings for appeals court nominees had slowed to perhaps one-half or one-third of the historic average, I can guarantee you that my friends across the aisle would be down here raising the roof about how we were failing to do our confirmation duty.
In fact, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee under the previous President and the hearing pace was actually much faster than it is today, they did complain early, loudly, and often.
But the pace today is worse than one-half, worse than one-third, worse even than one-fourth of the historic average.
The current Judiciary Committee hearing pace for appeals court nominees is the worst in decades.
In fact, there is no current pace at all.
Or look at what is going on, or I should say what is not going on, here on the Senate floor.
The current Judiciary Committee chairman in the past often insisted that 1992 provides the standard for judicial confirmation progress.
Like today, his party controlled the Senate and a President Bush was in the White House.
By this time that year, by April 10, 1992, the Senate had already confirmed 25 nominees to the federal bench.
It does not look like the Senate will confirm of 25 judicial nominees for the entire rest of the year.
This afternoon we will finally have the opportunity, the first opportunity of the year, to vote on a few nominees to the federal bench.
The majority has stalled judicial confirmation votes longer this year than in any presidential election year since 1848.
Yes, you heard me right.
This is the latest start to judicial confirmations of any presidential election year in 160 years.
That was the century before last.
That was before Utah even became a territory, let alone a state.
The last time the Senate waited this long in a presidential election year to confirm federal judges, James Polk, the 11th President, was in the White House.
What could possibly explain such abject confirmation failure?
I might have missed it, but I am not aware of any domestic armed conflict today that is disrupting the Senate’s business.
Yet the Civil War did not stop the Senate in 1864 from confirming seven judges before April 10.
Senators today do not have to use horses or carriages or travel on dirt roads.
Yet slow, burdensome travel did not stop the Senate in 1884 from confirming five judges before April 10.
The Great Depression did not stop the Senate in 1932 from confirming 14 judges before April 10.
The possibility of the Senate majority party capturing the White House did not stop Republicans in 2000 from confirming seven judges, including five appeals court judges, before April 10.
Today is April 10, 2008, and we will not confirm a single nominee to the federal bench until this afternoon and even this late start was noticed only yesterday.
Facts are indeed very stubborn things.
The majority has already virtually shut down the judicial confirmation process.
The Senate has not always operated this way.
The majority has refused to do what the American people sent us here to do because they can.
That may be the reason, but there is no excuse.
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
