DOCSLIB.ORG

Avoiding Judicial Armageddon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Avoiding Judicial Armageddon Avoiding Judicial Armageddon By Orrin G. Hatch | Wednesday, October 28, 2020 ___________ This month marks the 58th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the geopolitical showdown between the United States and the Soviet Union that brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. We are here today only because cooler heads prevailed in that conflict, leading to the Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact and the first real détente in the Cold War. More than five decades later, it’s worth applying the lessons of that dangerous moment to an entirely different matter: the battle over the Supreme Court. Today, we are engaged in a judicial arms race that, if left unchecked, will lead to the destruction of our democracy. For the sake of the courts and the Constitution, we can only hope that cooler heads once again prevail. In response to Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, some of our nation’s leaders have threatened the unthinkable: increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court for partisan purposes. This, they argue, is a necessary correction to the Court’s shifting ideological balance. But we should call it what it really is: a dramatic and irreversible escalation in the fight over the federal judiciary. So-called Court-packing would be the equivalent of launching a nuclear warhead — an extreme course of action that would require a reciprocal response. That’s why, for the better part of a century, both the Left and the Right have roundly condemned the idea. It’s only this year that support for Court-packing has gone mainstream, with prominent members of the Democratic Party openly considering it. This group includes two of my friends and former colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chris Coons (D., Del.) and former vice president Joe Biden. As recently as ​2017​, Senator Coons pushed back against calls to increase the number of justices on the Court. But last week, both ​he​ and ​Biden​ expressed a newfound openness to the idea. Biden and I served alongside each other on the Senate Judiciary Committee as chairman and ranking member, respectively. While we had our political differences, we were always aligned in our opposition to Court-packing. When we served together, he called it “​a bonehead idea​.” I could not agree more. I have great respect for both of these men. They have traditionally been the moderate voices in the Democratic Party, which is why I find their support for such a radical idea so unsettling. Historically, opposition to Court-packing has been bipartisan because both parties have recognized the importance of judicial independence to a healthy democracy. Indeed, the lack of judicial independence in the British empire was one of the reasons that motivated the Founders to sign the Declaration of Independence in the first place. Among their many grievances, the Founders rebuked King George III for seeking to re-create the court in his own image by “[making] Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” That’s why they took special pains to build protective walls around the judiciary to insulate it from politicization by the other branches of government. Court-packing would tear down these walls. It would undermine one of the very reasons we became a country by giving the executive branch unprecedented influence over the ideological composition of the judiciary. Instead of serving as a shield against oppression, a packed Court would be a political weapon in the hands of a freewheeling majority. Recognizing this threat, Republicans and Democrats presented a united front against attempts to pack the Court when the idea was last en vogue in the 1930s. As Senator Burton Wheeler (D., Mont.) warned at the time, this extreme measure would “extinguish [our] right of liberty, of speech, of thought, of action, and of religion.” Chief Justice William Rehnquist rightly ​referred​ to judicial independence as “one of the crown jewels of our system of government.” Are Democrats really willing to throw this crown jewel away in an effort to appease their base? I sincerely hope that the more level-headed voices in the party will see reason. But given rising passions on the left, I’m not counting on it. That’s why it’s not enough to educate Americans on the dangers of Court-packing. We need to go a step further by mounting a vigorous campaign against it. This campaign would represent the 58 percent​ of voters who oppose any increase in the number of justices on the Supreme Court. And it would make use of unconventional powers under the Constitution to protect judicial integrity. If, come January, a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House set the legislative wheels in motion to pack the Supreme Court, Republicans and middle-of-the-road Democrats will not be completely powerless to stop them. ​Article V​ of the Constitution provides states with an avenue to amend the Constitution independent of Congress. If progressives move to pack the Court, we should invoke this power to pass a constitutional amendment that would fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. Now, I understand the potential pitfalls, time delays, and procedural challenges of an Article V convention. In fact, I know them better than most. I spent the better part of my Senate tenure trying to pass a ​Balanced Budget Amendment​ through this unorthodox process. Both then and now, the “runaway convention” critique has been the strongest argument against using the Article V process to amend the Constitution. This is the fear that states would be unable to focus on a single issue at an Article V convention and would instead propose a never-ending string of amendments. It is an understandable concern in normal times — but these are not normal times. In a few months, Washington could pass legislation that would destroy the American judiciary as we know it. The imminent threat of judicial Armageddon would force states to focus on one amendment and one amendment only. And I believe it would motivate them to act in a way no previous issue has, allowing them to overcome some of the logistical hurdles that have prevented this process from going forward in the past. True, an Article V convention would be historically unprecedented. But just as historically unprecedented would be a brazen attempt to add four justices to the Supreme Court, ​as​ ​some have proposed. Given what’s at stake, it’s not hard to believe that the 34 states required to call a convention could rally behind a single amendment to cap the number of justices at nine. Of course, getting the 38 states required to ratify this amendment would be an exceedingly tall order. So I acknowledge that a successful Article V convention would still be a long shot. But as a symbolic gesture, it would send a powerful message to leaders in Washington that Court-packing defies the collective will of the American people. It would put elected officials on notice: Any attempt to use extraordinary measures to overthrow another branch of government will be met with an extraordinary response. Whether successful in passing an amendment or not, it would raise the political costs of packing the Court. Supporters of Court-packing would have to explain why they are trying to jam through a deeply unpopular initiative that a majority of states oppose — and in the end, it could be just enough to get Democrats to back down. Article V was built for this very purpose: to act as a fail-safe against Washington overreach. The Founders, in all their wisdom, ​included​ it in the Constitution for the day that the states would need to save the federal government from itself. Now, that day could soon be upon us. Progressives have done the equivalent of putting nuclear missiles in Cuba by threatening to pack the Court. But states can set up a blockade to box them in by organizing an Article V convention. Even if this strategy is successful only in getting the Left to stand down, it will still buy the country time. Then perhaps one day, when cooler heads have prevailed, we can begin the process of judicial disarmament by securing bipartisan support to fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. Until then, we must draw on every power granted by the Constitution to avoid a doomsday scenario. ___________ Orrin G. Hatch is the chairman emeritus of the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation. A Utah Republican, he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1977–2019. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix File Anes 1988‐1992 Merged Senate File
    Version 03 Codebook ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE ANES 1988‐1992 MERGED SENATE FILE USER NOTE: Much of his file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As a result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. MASTER CODES: The following master codes follow in this order: PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODES CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CODE ELECTIVE OFFICE CODE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE SENATOR NAMES CODES CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND POLLSTERS CAMPAIGN CONTENT CODES HOUSE CANDIDATES CANDIDATE CODES >> VII. MASTER CODES ‐ Survey Variables >> VII.A. Party/Candidate ('Likes/Dislikes') ? PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PEOPLE WITHIN PARTY 0001 Johnson 0002 Kennedy, John; JFK 0003 Kennedy, Robert; RFK 0004 Kennedy, Edward; "Ted" 0005 Kennedy, NA which 0006 Truman 0007 Roosevelt; "FDR" 0008 McGovern 0009 Carter 0010 Mondale 0011 McCarthy, Eugene 0012 Humphrey 0013 Muskie 0014 Dukakis, Michael 0015 Wallace 0016 Jackson, Jesse 0017 Clinton, Bill 0031 Eisenhower; Ike 0032 Nixon 0034 Rockefeller 0035 Reagan 0036 Ford 0037 Bush 0038 Connally 0039 Kissinger 0040 McCarthy, Joseph 0041 Buchanan, Pat 0051 Other national party figures (Senators, Congressman, etc.) 0052 Local party figures (city, state, etc.) 0053 Good/Young/Experienced leaders; like whole ticket 0054 Bad/Old/Inexperienced leaders; dislike whole ticket 0055 Reference to vice‐presidential candidate ? Make 0097 Other people within party reasons Card PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PARTY CHARACTERISTICS 0101 Traditional Democratic voter: always been a Democrat; just a Democrat; never been a Republican; just couldn't vote Republican 0102 Traditional Republican voter: always been a Republican; just a Republican; never been a Democrat; just couldn't vote Democratic 0111 Positive, personal, affective terms applied to party‐‐good/nice people; patriotic; etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranking Member John Barrasso
    Senate Committee Musical Chairs August 15, 2018 Key Retiring Committee Seniority over Sitting Chair/Ranking Member Viewed as Seat Republicans Will Most Likely Retain Viewed as Potentially At Risk Republican Seat Viewed as Republican Seat at Risk Viewed as Seat Democrats Will Most Likely Retain Viewed as Potentially At Risk Democratic Seat Viewed as Democratic Seat at Risk Notes • The Senate Republican leader is not term-limited; Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will likely remain majority leader. The only member of Senate GOP leadership who is currently term-limited is Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-TX). • Republicans have term limits of six years as chairman and six years as ranking member. Republican members can only use seniority to bump sitting chairs/ranking members when the control of the Senate switches parties. • Committee leadership for the Senate Aging; Agriculture; Appropriations; Banking; Environment and Public Works (EPW); Health Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP); Indian Affairs; Intelligence; Rules; and Veterans Affairs Committees are unlikely to change. Notes • Current Armed Services Committee (SASC) Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) continues to receive treatment for brain cancer in Arizona. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has served as acting chairman and is likely to continue to do so in Senator McCain’s absence. If Republicans lose control of the Senate, Senator McCain would lose his top spot on the committee because he already has six years as ranking member. • In the unlikely scenario that Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) does not take over the Finance Committee, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), who currently serves as Chairman of the Banking Committee, could take over the Finance Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • The Senate in Transition Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Nuclear Option1
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYL\19-4\NYL402.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-JAN-17 6:55 THE SENATE IN TRANSITION OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE NUCLEAR OPTION1 William G. Dauster* The right of United States Senators to debate without limit—and thus to filibuster—has characterized much of the Senate’s history. The Reid Pre- cedent, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s November 21, 2013, change to a sim- ple majority to confirm nominations—sometimes called the “nuclear option”—dramatically altered that right. This article considers the Senate’s right to debate, Senators’ increasing abuse of the filibuster, how Senator Reid executed his change, and possible expansions of the Reid Precedent. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 632 R I. THE NATURE OF THE SENATE ........................ 633 R II. THE FOUNDERS’ SENATE ............................. 637 R III. THE CLOTURE RULE ................................. 639 R IV. FILIBUSTER ABUSE .................................. 641 R V. THE REID PRECEDENT ............................... 645 R VI. CHANGING PROCEDURE THROUGH PRECEDENT ......... 649 R VII. THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION ........................ 656 R VIII. POSSIBLE REACTIONS TO THE REID PRECEDENT ........ 658 R A. Republican Reaction ............................ 659 R B. Legislation ...................................... 661 R C. Supreme Court Nominations ..................... 670 R D. Discharging Committees of Nominations ......... 672 R E. Overruling Home-State Senators ................. 674 R F. Overruling the Minority Leader .................. 677 R G. Time To Debate ................................ 680 R CONCLUSION................................................ 680 R * Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy for U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. The author has worked on U.S. Senate and White House staffs since 1986, including as Staff Director or Deputy Staff Director for the Committees on the Budget, Labor and Human Resources, and Finance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Orrin Hatch the Honorable Ron Wyden Chairman Ranking Member United States Senate Committee on Finance United State
    The Honorable Orrin Hatch The Honorable Ron Wyden Chairman Ranking Member United States Senate Committee on Finance United States Senate Committee on Finance Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Greg Walden The Honorable Frank Pallone Chairman Ranking Member United States House Committee on United State House Committee on Energy & Commerce Energy and Commerce Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 October 5, 2018 Dear Chairmen Hatch and Walden and Ranking Members Wyden and Pallone: On behalf of Nemours Children’s Health System (Nemours), I am writing to thank you for your commitment to addressing the opioid epidemic and particularly for your work on the conferenced opioid bill (H.R.6). We especially appreciate your inclusion of Sec. 1005, which addresses Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidance related to Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS), as well as Sec. 1009, which addresses the provision of telehealth for substance use disorder, including in school based health centers. We appreciate the dedication of your staff in prioritizing the needs of the pediatric population. As you know, there is not currently consistency in terminology, delivery models and coding regarding NAS. Additionally, especially given the cost to Medicaid, there is great opportunity for states to learn from one another regarding payment models to test. The additional guidance and technical assistance included in Section 1005 of H.R. 6 will provide further clarity and assist in the dissemination of emerging best practices. Additionally, emerging evidence suggests that providing mental health services in schools is an effective way to identify and reach children with mental health needs, and that telehealth can be an effective tool in expanding access to mental health services.i Given that nearly half of Medicaid beneficiaries are children, the provisions in Section 1009 of H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Orrin Hatch – Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act
    The Orrin Hatch – Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act A Guide for Sound Recordings Collectors This study was written by Eric Harbeson, on behalf of and commissioned by the National Recording Preservation Board. Members of the National Recording Preservation Board American Federation of Musicians National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Billy Linneman Maureen Droney Alternate: Daryl Friedman American Folklore Society Burt Feintuch (in memoriam) National Archives and Records Administration Alternate: Timothy Lloyd Daniel Rooney Alternate: Tom Nastick American Musicological Society Judy Tsou Recording Industry Association of America Alternate: Patrick Warfield David Hughes Alternate: Patrick Kraus American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers SESAC Elizabeth Matthews John JosePhson Alternate: John Titta Alternate: Eric Lense Association for Recorded Sound Collections Society For Ethnomusicology David Seubert Jonathan Kertzer Alternate: Bill Klinger Alternate: Alan Burdette Audio Engineering Society Songwriters Hall of Fame George Massenburg Linda Moran Alternate: Elizabeth Cohen Alternate: Robbin Ahrold Broadcast Music, Incorporated At-Large Michael O'Neill Michael Feinstein Alternate: Michael Collins At-Large Country Music Foundation Brenda Nelson-Strauss Kyle Young Alternate: Eileen Hayes Alternate: Alan Stoker At-Large Digital Media Association Mickey Hart Garrett Levin Alternate: ChristoPher H. Sterling Alternate: Sally Rose Larson At-Large Music Business Association Bob Santelli Portia Sabin Alternate: Al Pryor Alternate: Paul JessoP At-Large Music Library Association Eric Schwartz James Farrington Alternate: John Simson Alternate: Maristella Feustle Abstract: The Music Modernization Act is reviewed in detail, with a Particular eye toward the implications for members of the community suPPorted by the National Recording Preservation Board, including librarians, archivists, and Private collectors. The guide attemPts an exhaustive treatment using Plain but legally precise language.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Law Review Volume 52 2019 Number 1
    Indiana Law Review Volume 52 2019 Number 1 SYMPOSIUM HOOSIER BRIDESMAIDS MARGO M. LAMBERT* A. CHRISTOPHER BRYANT** Indiana proudly proclaims itself the “Crossroads of America.”1 While some northeast-corridor cynics might deride the boast as a paraphrase for flyover country, there is no denying the political significance of the Hoosier State’s geographical and cultural centrality. As one of Indiana’s most celebrated historians has observed, “[b]y the beginning of the twentieth century Indiana was often cited as the most typical of American states, perhaps because Hoosiers in this age of transition generally resisted radical change and were able usually to balance moderate change with due attention to the continuities of life and culture.”2 Throughout the Gilded Age, elections in the state were so closely fought that the winning party rarely claimed more than slimmest majority.3 At the time, Indiana tended to favor Republicans over Democrats, but the races were close with Democrats claiming their share of victories.4 During these years, voter turnout remained high in presidential elections, with Indiana ranging from the eightieth to the ninetieth percentiles, no doubt a product of the closeness of the contests. Such voter turnout substantially exceeded that typical of surrounding states.5 Hoosiers liked to politick. The state’s high voter participation may also have been, in some part, attributable to its relaxed voting laws for adult males during the nineteenth * Associate Professor of History, University of Cincinnati Blue Ash College. ** Rufus King Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law. The authors, proud Hoosiers by birth and Buckeyes by professional opportunity, thank first and foremost Brad Boswell for entrusting us with the opportunity to open the March 29, 2018 Symposium.
    [Show full text]
  • Exorcising Orrin Hatch | Huffpost
    Exorcising Orrin Hatch | HuffPost US EDITION THE BLOG 04/23/2012 11:43 am ET | Updated Jun 23, 2012 Exorcising Orrin Hatch By Marty Kaplan It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. Because Senator Orrin Hatch couldn’t eke out 60 percent of the votes at the Utah Republican Party’s convention this past weekend, he’ll face a primary challenge from former state senator Dan Liljenquist. With the help of Tea Party piggy banks like FreedomWorks, Liljenquist has assailed Hatch as a conservative in name only. Hatch counters that his seniority - he’s been in the Senate since 1976 - will put him in line to chair the Finance Committee if the GOP takes the upper chamber in November, but Liljenquist has flipped that into a liability: Hatch has been a Washington insider too long. Going into the convention, Hatch held a big lead over Liljenquist in statewide polls, but millions of dollars of anonymously funded attack ads could well make Hatch sweat bullets. Which would be sweet, because Hatch, along with former Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, has held a special place in my heart ever since the 1991 hearings on Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court nomination. Then as now, it’s impossible to be neutral on Professor Anita Hill’s allegations against Thomas. Either you believe that Hill was lying about being sexually harassed by Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and that the Judiciary Committee hearings were, as Thomas memorably called them, a “high tech lynch mob,” or you believe that Thomas perjured himself, and that the Republican senators impugning Hill’s integrity were - well, disgusting jackals doesn’t seem too unforgiving.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalized Citizens and the Presidency
    Naturalized Citizens and the Presidency The U.S. Constitution requires that a candidate for president or vice president must have been born in the United States or otherwise a “natural born citizen.” Controversies have arisen in U.S. history from time to time as to who is “natural born” and therefore eligible to be president. Furthermore, with so many foreign-born citizens living in the United States, many people believe this constitutional requirement itself should be changed. In 1787, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia wrote the U.S. Constitution and established the eligibility requirements of the Office of the Presidency. Article II, Section 1 makes clear that to be president, a person must be at least 35 years old and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. Importantly, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention added a clause requiring that the president be a “natural born citizen.” The natural-born citizen clause has been traditionally interpreted to allow only those who were born within the United States to be president. It states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . .” Where Does the Term “Natural Born Citizen” Come From? The term “natural born citizen” has origins in English common law, or the law as understood from the courts in England. In his authoritative Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), William Blackstone wrote, “Natural-born subjects are . born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within .
    [Show full text]
  • Anita Hill Testimony Joe Biden
    Anita Hill Testimony Joe Biden Hanford is unarmed: she excoriating worldly and dogmatizes her Britannia. Caecal Lemuel grumble or crust some trochophore vicariously, however virgulate Ave lubricating economically or bobbled. Hereditable and rhinocerotic Hurley remigrating her demeanor pitted appassionato or reorganized unambiguously, is Spence pugilistic? And what is the white house on editorially chosen by kavanaugh is an issue of limitations on with axios sports updates on anita hill on Every major winter storm pummeled the accusations and anita hill testimony joe biden harassed her mouth when he has been careful about hill amounts to deliver two people accused of his. Oryh vwrulhv ehklqg glyhuvh, anita hill testimony joe biden instead of anita hill. Ccpa acknowledgement and anita hill testimony joe biden. Matthew rozsa is the testimony could have not feel that means to anita hill testimony before she struggled to. Even hopes those remarks, joe biden left and christine blasey ford described her testimony to anita hill testimony joe biden? Over the anita hill testimony joe biden got the anita hill was an apology or its laughably hired a surprise. They were grandstanding with the senate judiciary committee led then: southern california psychology major impact of anita hill testimony joe biden rests his best light moment. Just because anita hill testimony with party which is joe has spoken primarily in how can include anita hill testimony joe biden allows it will be joe biden walks in. Waldo fidele saw happening nor, anita thought than anita hill testimony joe biden is. What is just one of whom he really take care of representatives, reporting platform to his position of anita hill testimony joe biden again would talk about shoe leather as having carefully at vice.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Blue Slip in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1917-Present
    Order Code RL32013 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The History of the Blue Slip in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1917-Present Updated October 22, 2003 Mitchel A. Sollenberger Analyst in American National Government Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress The History of the Blue Slip in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1917-Present Summary The blue-slip process had its genesis in the Senate tradition of senatorial courtesy. Under this informal custom, the Senate would refuse to confirm a nomination unless the nominee had been approved by the home-state Senators of the President’s party. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary created the blue slip (so called because of its color) out of this practice in the early 1900s. Initially, the blue slip permitted Senators, regardless of party affiliation, to voice their opinion on a President’s nomination to a district court in their state or to a circuit court judgeship traditionally appointed from their home state. Over the years, the blue slip has evolved into a tool used by Senators to delay, and often times prevent, the confirmation of nominees they find objectionable. The following six periods highlight the major changes that various chairmen of the Judiciary Committee undertook in their blue-slip policy: ! From 1917 through 1955: The blue-slip policy allowed home-state Senators to state their objections but committee action to move forward on a nomination. If a Senator objected to his/her home-state nominee, the committee would report the nominee adversely to the Senate, where the contesting Senator would have the option of stating his/her objections to the nominee before the Senate would vote on confirmation.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 106 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 146 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2000 No. 126 Senate (Legislative day of Friday, September 22, 2000) The Senate met at 9:32 a.m. on the staffÐstopped in our tracks and really sion and debate off with thanking my expiration of the recess, and was called asked for Your help, You would inter- good friend and colleague, Senator to order by the President pro tempore vene and help this Senate achieve PAUL WELLSTONE. He and I have [Mr. THURMOND]. unity with both excellence and effi- worked together on this bill the entire The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ciency? In our heart of hearts we know year. We have come at this from dif- Chaplain will now deliver the opening You would, and will, if we ask You with ferent points of view. I think we have prayer. a united voice of earnestness. Dear worked together and come up with an God, bless this Senate. We relinquish excellent proposal and package. I hope PRAYER our control and ask You to take for unanimous support from the Sen- The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John charge. It's hard to be willing, but we ate. Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: are willing to allow You to make us We got near that in the House, with The Psalmist gives us a timely word willing. You are our Lord and Saviour. a vote of 377±1. I have spoken with that for this pressured week, ``Cast your Amen.
    [Show full text]