In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."  Yet, today in America, it often seems that the depository of ultimate power does not rest with the people, but with an unaccountable and unelected federal judiciary.

Too often, public policy is determined, not by the consent of the governed, but by the whims of a few activist federal judges.  No matter what the issue, from religious freedom, crime, welfare, education and taxation, federal judges are having the final say.  These individuals are not merely interpreting the law, they are making it.

The lifetime appointments enjoyed by our federal judiciary are intended to shield judges from the influence of politics in their decision making.  However, we have learned that this constraint on the power of the people to hold their government accountable has become a double-edged sword that sometimes frees activist ideologues to politicize their trusted position and thwart the will of the people.  Rather than acting as arbiters of federal law and the Constitution, these judges prefer to act as a super-legislature that overrides the will of the public as expressed by their elected representatives.

This is not the way our Founding Fathers intended our government to operate.  They intended the will of society to be expressed through the legislative representatives of the people.  I believe that the sound wisdom of our founders' judgment remains instructive today.  If the American people do not like the policies that govern our society, they are able to remove their elected policy makers from office and replace them with officials more to their liking.  However, this is not an option with lifetime-appointed federal judges.  
                    
The answer to this perplexing problem is not to rescind lifetime tenure, but rather to ensure that judges appointed to the federal bench can be trusted to wield their power within the governing constitutional constraints.  As a U.S. Senator, I believe that the review of judicial nominations is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and I firmly believe that each of the President's nominees should be afforded a straight up-or-down vote. I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed. To that end I firmly support changing the Senate rules to require that a simple majority be necessary to confirm all judicial nominees, thus ending the continuous filibuster of them. Federal judges are invested with extensive power and are given lifetime tenure.  Therefore, I pay particularly close attention to the records, backgrounds, and philosophical views of all judicial nominees prior to voting.  Given the tremendous shortage of federal judges, it is my hope that the Senate will move quickly to confirm judicial appointments.