The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 2 2003 Confirmation Gridlock: The ederF al Judicial Appointments Process under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush John Anthony Maltese Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess Part of the Judges Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Legal History Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation John Anthony Maltese, Confirmation Gridlock: The ederF al Judicial Appointments Process under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, 5 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 1 (2003). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess/vol5/iss1/2 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process by an authorized administrator of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS ESSAYS CONFIRMATION GRIDLOCK: THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS UNDER BILL CLINTON AND GEORGE W. BUSH John Anthony Maltese* One of the most important consequences of the 2002 midterm congressional election will be its effect on federal judicial appointments. With the same political party controlling the White House and the Senate for the first time in eight years, President George W. Bush should have an easier time securing Senate confirmation of his federal judges than he did during his first two years in office.' As of January 1, 2003, the president had sixty vacancies to fill on the federal bench, including * John Anthony Maltese is an associate professor of political science at the University of Georgia. Portions of this article are based on his book, The Selling of Supreme Court Nominees (Johns Hopkins U. Press 1995), and his paper, Judicial Selection in the Wake of Bush v. Gore, prepared for the conference, "Final Arbiter: The U.S. Supreme Court, the Presidency, and the Politics of Election 2000," co-sponsored by the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics and the Constitutional Law Center of the University of Akron School of Law, in Akron, Ohio, in February 2002 (copy on file with author). 1. In fact, Republicans had nominal control of the Senate from January through May 2001. Despite a fifty-fifty split between Democrats and Republicans, Vice President Dick Cheney had the tie-breaking vote in his constitutional role as president of the Senate. Democrats regained firm control of the Senate when Republican senator James Jeffords of Vermont became an independent in May 2001. THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring 2003) THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS twenty-five on the courts of appeals.2 There was also much speculation that Bush would have the opportunity to appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court in 2003. 3 The last Supreme Court vacancy had occurred in 1994 when Harry Blackmun resigned and President Bill Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer. With more than eight years since that vacancy, the nation faced the longest stretch without an opening on the Supreme Court since 1823. That stretch had been dominated by "divided government." Democrats controlled the White House while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 through 2000. Republicans controlled the White House and the House of Representatives while Democrats controlled the Senate from 2001 through 2002. 4 Those eight years of all but continuous divided government were part of an emerging pattern. From 1969 through 2002, the same political party had controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for only six out of twenty-four years.' The same party controlled both the Senate and the White House for only twelve of those twenty-four.6 Although divided government has been the norm since World War II, unified government had been the norm before that.7 Divided control of the White House and the Senate has significant ramifications for judicial appointments because presidents only have the authority under the constitution to nominate individuals to fill those posts. Appointment only comes with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. 2. Various groups maintain current online lists of judicial vacancies and advocacy concerning the vacancies. These include the liberal Alliance for Justice, which maintains a website at <http://www.allianceforjustice.org>, and the conservative Free Congress Foundation, which maintains a website at <http://www.judicialselection.org>. 3. See, for example, Lyle Denniston, Election 2002/Judicial Impact, Boston Globe A40 (Nov. 7, 2002); Neil A. Lewis, Expecting a Vacancy, Bush Aides Weigh Supreme Court Contenders, 151 N.Y. Times AI (Dec. 27, 2002). 4. As noted above, Republicans briefly controlled the Senate from. January through May 2001, but this had no effect on judicial nominations. 5. Democrats maintained united government from 1977 through 1980, and again from 1993 through 1994. 6. Democrats controlled both the White House and the Senate from 1977 through 1980 and from 1993 through 1994. Republicans controlled both the White House and the Senate from 1981 through 1986. 7. Samuel Kernell & Gary C. Jacobson, The Logic of American Politics 259 (2d ed., CQ Press 2003). CONFIRMATION GRIDLOCK: JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS The recent period of divided government has been accompanied by a trend toward polarized politics in the United States Political scientists Jon Bond and Richard Fleisher have documented the decline in the number of "partisan nonconformists" in Congress (which they define as "moderate and cross-pressured Democrats and Republicans" ).9 As a result, the parties in Congress have become more polarized, leading to a dramatic increase in partisan voting. The trend began in the House of Representatives after the 1982 midterm elections. The trend did not emerge in the Senate until some years later, but by the mid 1990s the Senate (as measured by party votes) was even more partisan than the House.' Another political scientist, Gary Jacobson, has noted that this has been accompanied by an increase in partisanship among the electorate: Party loyalty has increased, ticket splitting has decreased, and the ideological gap between members of the two parties has widened." All of this has helped to increase the likelihood of confirmation battles over judicial nominees. It also produced "confirmation gridlock" -a dramatic slowdown of the confirmation process for federal judges-begun by the Republicans after President Clinton's re-election in 1996 and perpetuated by the Democrats in the first two years of the Bush administration. Polarized politics led to confirmation battles and confirmation gridlock because judicial appointments were thought by participants in the process to have a potentially profound impact on public policy. White House aide Tom Charles Huston made this clear in a 1969 memorandum to President Richard Nixon. Huston noted that judicial nominations were 8. Richard Fleisher & Jon R. Bond, Congress and the President in a PartisanEra, in Polarized Politics: Congress and the President ina Partisan Era 1-8 (Jon R. Bond & Richard Fleisher, eds., CQ Press 2000). 9. Jon R. Bond & Richard Fleisher, Presentation of Paper, The Disappearance of Moderate and Cross-PressuredMembers of Congress: Conversion, Replacement and Electoral Change (Am. Pol. Sci. Assn., Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2001) (abstract on file with Journal of Appellate Practice and Process). 10. Fleisher & Bond, supra n. 8, at 3-4. 11.Gary C. Jacobson, Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection, in Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a PartisanEra, supra n. 8, at 19-23. THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS perhaps the least considered aspect of Presidential power.... In approaching the bench, it is necessary to remember that the decision as to who will make the decisions affects what decisions will be made. That is, the role the judiciary will play in different historical eras depends as much on the type of men who become judges as it does on the constitutional rules which appear to [guide them].2 Huston therefore urged Nixon to set specific criteria for the types of judges to be nominated (a litmus test) in an effort to influence judicial policymaking. If the president "establishes his criteria and establishes his machinery for insuring that the criteria are met, the appointments will be his, in fact, as in theory." '" A memo from Nixon's Chief Domestic Affairs Adviser, John Ehrlichman, that transmitted a copy of Huston's memo to the president said: "Huston's memorandum is well done and raises some interesting points." Underneath, Nixon added a handwritten note: "To [Deputy Attorney General Richard] Kleindienst: RN agrees. Have this analysis in mind when making judicial nominations." " When the president and the Senate are controlled by the same political party and are in basic agreement about the direction that they believe public policy should take, it is relatively easy for the president to secure confirmation of his nominees. Thus, President Franklin Roosevelt achieved with little opposition a dramatic transformation of the Supreme Court that had significant policy consequences. Seven of his nine nominees were confirmed by voice vote. The remaining two- Hugo Black and William 0. Douglas-were confirmed by votes 12. Memo. from Tom Charles Huston, White House aide, to President Richard Nixon, Memorandum for the President