Judicial nominations and political war games

June 25, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Today's post is from IL reporter Michael Hoskins:

Indiana hasn’t gotten any news this week so far in the arena of federal judicial nominations. But what’s happened is worth taking a look at.

The full U.S. Senate Tuesday evening confirmed a controversial Michigan appellate judge to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals based in Cincinnati. Judge Helene White was elected to the Michigan Court of Appeals in 1992. What makes this confirmation historic is that her name has been in the hat for the 6th Circuit for 11 years. That’s not a typo; more than a decade. Her actual nomination came from President Bill Clinton in 1997, but Republicans blocked it and the nomination languished for years. She never received a vote before President George W. Bush withdrew her nomination in 2001. That’s the longest time without a vote for any judicial candidate in Senate history. In legal circles and those watching judicial confirmations, Judge White’s nomination had become a symbol of how partisan politics can influence the judiciary. Angry Democrats and Republicans have been battling since 1997 about this nomination, accusing each other at times of trying to pack the courts to direct rulings to their liking.

Earlier this year, President Bush resubmitted Judge White’s name in exchange for his choices of two other Michigan nominees: attorney Raymond Kethledge to another 6th Circuit vacancy and U.S. attorney Stephen Murphy (who the current president had originally wanted for the 6th Circuit). The three were a package deal.

Of course, nothing that controversial is coming from Hoosier state as it relates to recent and current nominations. That’s the good news. Judge John D. Tinder easily made it to the 7th Circuit last year and Magistrate Judge William T. Lawrence is sailing through the confirmation process since being nominated by President Bush in February. As with Judge Tinder’s confirmation, both Indiana senators – Republican Dick Lugar and Democrat Evan Bayh – came together to smile, shake hands, and say good things about the judicial nominees from their state. The Senate may vote on Magistrate Lawrence’s nomination Thursday and if the recent past is any indication, it’s expected to be a historic, and completely uncontroversial, confirmation.

But in a time when judicial independence is trumpeted by so many at all levels, what does this 6th Circuit political bickering say about politics and the judiciary overall? Practically, delays mean vacancies. That means courts must juggle rising caseloads, and that’s just not good for anyone in the legal system. But how can we talk about judicial independence on one hand and then watch as politicians try to cherry-pick candidates? It seems this can be seen everywhere from the federal level to the state level.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • It seems that there always has been, and always will be, political tension in the nomination process, particularly with nominees who have political baggage. As exemplified by Judges Tinder, Hamilton and Lawrence,

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT