Panelist

 Excerpts  from    
“Breaking  the  Judicial  Nominations  and  Confirmation  Log  Jam”  
FBA-­‐Brookings  Judicial  Issues  Forum  
Monday  February  28,  2011  
 

Panel  One  

Benjamin  Wittes  (Brookings)  

:         When  I  started  writing  about  this  subject  in  the  mid  and  late  ‘90s  I  thought  we  were  in  a  
race  to  the  bottom.    And  I  really  actually,  the  only  thing  that  I  had  wrong  was  that  I  really  
underestimated  how  low  the  bottom  was.    …..pg  2  

:   And  so  I  guess  the  purpose  of  today’s  event,  we  wanted  to  talk  a  bit  about  the  
institutional  impact  on  the  judiciary,  on  the  sort  of  personal  impact  on  the  nominees  and  the  
willingness  to  serve  as  a  result  of  it.    …..pg  2  

:   Destroy  people’s  reputations,  stop  the  other  side  from  getting  what  it  wants  and,  you  
know,  get  yours  and  prevent  them  from  getting  theirs.    Nobody  ever  sort  of  perceived  
themselves  as  playing  that  role.    …..pg  19  

:   And  the  only  explanation  that  I’ve  ever  been  able  to  think  of  for  this  is  that  we  have  
realized  as  a  society,  and  particularly  the  Senate  and  the  interest  groups  that  advocate  in  this  
area,  have  realized  that  the  judiciary  is  an  extraordinarily  powerful  institution,  set  of  
institutions.    And  they’ve  realized  as  well  that  once  you  confirm  somebody  to  a  federal  
judgeship  there’s  not  much  you  can  do  about  what  that  person  says,  save  reversal,  and  the  
really,  you  know,  that  takes  doing.      …..pg  20  

:   The  Senate  is  subject  to  partisan  shifts  and  partisan  retributions.    And  so  when  you  talk  
about  the  institutional  quality  of  the  way  the  Senate  does  its  job,  the  partisan  dimension  
immediately  comes  up  unnecessarily  unless  you  have  some  very  strong  senatorial  norms  that  
militate  against  it.    Now,  those  norms  used  to  exist.    There  used  to  be  an  understanding  that  
you  didn’t  stop  district  judges.      …..pg  26  

:   Even  if  you  reject  everything  that  was  said  by  everybody,  all  three  of  my  co-­‐panelists,  I  
challenge  anyone  in  this  room  to  think  of  a  single  ideological  point  of  American  law  that  was  
decided  on  a  final  basis  by  a  U.S.  district  judge.      …..pg  36  
   2  

:   But  a  single  significant  point  of  substantive  ideologically  contested  law,  these  are  not  
decided  by  federal  district  judges  ever.        …..pg  36  

:   Somebody  at  some  point  has  to  take  a  leadership  role  and  say  I  don’t  want  to  play  these  
games  anymore.    I  want  to  acknowledge  that  wrong  was  done  including  by  my  party,  and  I  want  
to  figure  out  a  way  going  forward  to  acknowledge  what  we  did,  acknowledge  what  was  done  to  
us,  and  figure  out  a  different  modus  Vivendi.    And  I  think  it  has  to  be  a  matter  of  presidential  
leadership.      …..pg  37  

Ashley  Belleau  (President  FBA)  

:   the  FBA’s  foremost  interest  lies  in  the  assurance  of  prompt,  dispositive  action  by  the  
President  in  nominating  qualified  federal  judicial  candidates  and  the  Senate  in  either  confirming  
or  not  confirming  them  in  a  prompt  manner      …..pg  3  &  4  

William  LaForge  (Moderator)  

:   At  the  completion  of  this  last  year,  Chief  Justice  Roberts  indicated  the  urgent  need  for  
Democrats  and  Republicans  to  put  aside  bickering  and  to  fill  federal  judicial  vacancies.          …..pg  5  

Russell  Wheeler  (Brookings)  

:   Bush’s  first  2  years  the  Senate  confirmed  92  percent  of  his  district  judges    ….pg  7  

:   But  even  if  you  discount  that,  even  if  you  discount  those  13  nominees,  as  I  said  his  
confirmation  rate  for  district  nominees  in  his  first  2  years  is  only  67  percent.    So  again,  are  we  
looking  at  a  fundamental  change  in  how  the  Senate  treats  district  nominees?    …..pg8  

:   I  just  want  to  something  real  quick.    What  judge  Furgeson  said,  there’s  a  fair  amount  of  
empirical  bearing  that  out,  both  by  research  done  by  Robert  Carr  and  colleagues  at  the  
University  of  Houston  and  then  a  Brookings  Book  published  by  Cass  Sunstein  and  others.    If  you  
listen  to  FOX  news  and  MSNBC  you’d  think  the  gap  between  Democratic  and  Republican  
appointed  judges  is,  you  know,  90/10.    It’s  really  pretty  close.    In  some  areas  it’s  
indistinguishable.      …..pg  35  &  36  

 
   3  

Chief  Judge  Lamberth  (District  of  the  District  of  Columbia)  

:     I  think  the  system  is  broken.    I  want  to  talk  a  little  about  why  I  believe  that.    …..pg  10  

:   Last  year  at  the  University  of  Idaho,  Chief  Justice  Roberts  spoke  about  how  the  process  
of  appointing  new  justices  to  the  Supreme  Court  has  become  so  polarized  and  politicized  as  
senators  try  to  pin  down  how  a  nominee  might  vote  on  a  particular  issue.    …..pg  10  

:   The  chief  justice  observed  that  that  kind  of  questioning  is  inappropriate  since  judges  are  
expected  to  be  impartial  in  hearing  the  cases  that  come  before  them.    …..pg  10  

:   The  Los  Angeles  Times  observed  that  if  President  Obama  wants  to  deliver  on  the  
bipartisanship  that  he  promised,  he  should  focus  on  the  process  for  selecting  federal  judges.    
…..pg  10  

:       I  will  tell  you  as  an  independent  observer,  both  parties  are  right.    I  think  President  
Obama  and  the  democrats  who  now  control  the  Senate  should  recognized  that  excessive  
partisanship  can  fuel  fire.    It  certainly  has  in  the  past.    And  Republicans  also  need  to  recognize  
that  fact.    …..pg  11  

:   The  longs  delays  and  partisan  bickering  have  dissuaded  some  very  capable  lawyers  from  
pursuing  federal  judgeships.    We  should  be  striving  for  the  best  and  the  brightest  outstanding  
lawyers  who  can  be  fair  and  impartial  judges.    …..pg  11  

:   That  kind  of  interest  group  reaction  is  exactly  what  causes  or  creates  the  poisonous  
atmosphere  that  exists  on  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee.    …..pg  12  

:   Shorthanded  courts  cannot  function  properly,  and  many  litigants  who  face  lengthy  
delays  and  crowded  dockets  are  ultimately  denied  the  justice  they  seek.    …..pg  12  

:   This  partisan  bickering  over  who  borked  who  and  when  eventually  has  resulted  in  
confirmation  hearings  where  the  wife  of  the  judicial  nominee  left  the  hearing  room  in  tears  
because  of  the  smears  to  her  husband’s  good  name  and  reputation.    …..pg  13  

:   One  nominee  whose  nomination  lapsed  told  me  that  she  asked  the  President  not  to  
resubmit  her  name  to  the  new  Congress  because  she  found  the  Senate  confirmation  process  to  
be  so  demeaning.    …..pg  13  

:   I  say  to  both  Republicans  and  Democrats  you’re  injuring  the  federal  judiciary  and  for  the  
sake  of  our  country  which  needs  a  fair  and  impartial  and  independent  judiciary,  stop  this  war.      
…..pg  14  
   4  

:   That’s  why  we’re  having  a  hard  time  getting  civil  trials.    But  that  largely  was  the  result  of  
so  many  vacancies  at  one  time  and  now  we  have  a  fifth.    Judge  Urbina  has  taken  senior  status.    
There’s  no  nominee  yet  for  that  but  it’s  in  the  works.    We’ve  used  visiting  judges  when  we  can  
and  try  to  keep  you  with  the  civil  side  but  many  districts  around  the  country,  not  just  us,  have  
the  exact  same  problem.    And  certainly,  all  the  border  courts  have  it.      …..pg  29  &  30  

:   We  would  be  sinking  without  senior  judges.    We’ve  been  very  fortunate  to  keep  senior  
judges  working.    They  are  obligated  to  work  a  quarter  time  to  keep  chambers  and  staff.    Most  
of  ours  work  between  half  and  three-­‐quarters  time  and  they’re  going  to  draw  their  full  salary  
for  life  anyway  so  it’s  actually  free  labor.    …..pg  31  

Hon.  W.  Royal  Furgeson  (Northern  District,  TX)  

:   So  basically,  the  docket  had  grown  tenfold  in  five  years  and  I  was  scrambling.    We  were  
all  scrambling.      …..pg  15  

:   First,  as  you  all  know,  there’s  a  constitutional  and  statutory  requirement  to  give  
defendants  as  speedy  trial.    When  you’re  dealing  with  400  –  really  more  than  400  defendants  
because  some  of  the  cases  had  two  or  more,  I  was  dealing  with  almost  600  defendants  –  you  
really  begin  to  have  trouble  giving  people  a  speedy  trial.    And  you  start  an  assembly  line  process  
which  is  not  optimal.      …..pg  16  

:   The  problem  is  also  acute  because  of  pretrial  detention  costs.      …..pg  16  

:     [A]  normal  federal  court  will  handle  during  this  period  of  time  something  like  75  to  85  to  
90  criminal  cases  and  I  was  handling  450.  .  .  .  I  would  sometimes  look  out  in  the  evening  at  the  
mass  of  people  assembled  in  my  courtroom  and  it  would  take  me  back  to  the  days  when  I  was  a  
very  young  lawyer  and  my  firm  was  assigning  me  to  handle  clients  in  night  traffic  court.  And  I  
felt  like  I  was  in  night  traffic  court.    The  problem,  of  course,  in  night  traffic  court  if  my  client  got  
fined  it  was  going  to  be  a  couple  of  hundred  bucks  at  the  most,  and  the  problem  that  I  had  with  
the  defendants  before  me,  they  were  looking  at  years  —  potentially  years  and  years  in  a  federal  
prison.  And  I  was  able  to  give  them  about  as  much  attention  as  I  could  see  those  traffic  judges  
giving  their  —  the  defendants  before  them  attention  when  the  fines  were  about  $100  or  $200.  
It  was  not  a  good  feeling  and  federal  judges  all  across  the  border  continue  to  deal  with  this  
problem  of  not  having  the  time  it  takes  to  really  consider  what  they’re  doing,  especially  in  
sentencing.  And  I  don’t  think  there’s  a  federal  judge  in  American  that  will  tell  you  —  that  will  
disagree  with  this  statement.  The  hardest  job  we  have  is  to  sentence  human  beings.  You  know,  
it’s  something  to  judge  another  human  being.  And  it’s  a  very  hard  job.  And  to  feel  like  you’re  
   5  

not  being  able  to  give  it  near  the  attention  it  deserves  creates  a  desperate  sense  of  failure  on  
your  part.    …..pg  16  and  17  
:   The  word  dire  has  been  used  several  times  and  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  on  the  border  
the  situation  is  dire.    We  need  more  federal  judges,  we  need  more  judgeships,  and  pending  
vacancies  create  an  enormous  difficulty.    …..pg  17  &  18  

:   And  businesses  need  a  strong  rule  of  law  and  prompt  rulings  by  judges.    …..pg  148  

:   Vacancies  desperately  need  to  be  filled;  new  judges  desperately  need  to  be  added.    We  
owe  that  to  our  border  judges.    We  owe  that  to  our  citizens.    We  owe  that  to  our  constitution.    
We  owe  that  to  the  rule  of  law.    And  we  owe  it  to  the  cause  of  justice.    …..pg  18  

:   What  I  really  can’t  understand  is  what  the  fight  is  about  district  judges.    We  are  really  
doing  the  bread  and  butter  work  of  the  courts.    We’re  the  boots  on  the  ground.    We’re  where  
everything  starts.      …..pg  24  

:   We’re  trying  to  move  these  cases.    We’re  trying  to  comply  with  the  Speedy  Trial  Act.    
We’re  trying  to  make  sure  that  the  rule  of  law  works  and  that  justice  gets  done.      …..pg  24  

:   It  seems  that  to  me  both  sides  bear  equal  fault  in  this  process.    …..pg  26  

:   So  we  need  not  only  vacancies  filled  but  we  need  new  judgeships.    …..pg  30  

:   If  it  weren’t  for  senior  judges  our  whole  institution  would  be  under  water.      …..pg  31  

:   I’ve  been  a  district  judge  for  17  years  and  we  are  really  committed  to  try  to  make  this  
system  work  and  we  are  institutional  people.    And  we  want  justice  to  be  done.    We  believe  in  
juries  and  the  jury  system.      …..pg  35  

:   Nobody  wants  to  do  the  part  that  Ben  says  of  admitting  they  did  wrong.    So  long  as  
nobody  is  going  to  do  that  it’s  not  going  to  happen.      …..pg  37  &  38  

:   But  I  would  like  to  say  this,  that  you  know,  in  some  ways  sort  of  the  spirit  of  our  
revolution  was  captured  by  Thomas  Payne  in  Common  Sense  when  he  said  in  a  monarchy  the  
king  is  law  but  in  a  democracy  the  law  is  king.    We  are  a  nation  based  on  the  rule  of  law.    And  
for  that  rule  to  work  you’ve  got  to  have  sufficient  judges  to  handle  the  cases  and  handle  them  
in  a  thoughtful  way.      …..pg  41  
   6  

Panel  Two  

Thomas  Mann  (Brookings  Institution)  

:   In  fact,  it  reminds  me  of  the  broader  problem  of  American  politics  today  and  think  one  
of  the  questions  our  panel  will  be  wrestling  with  is  just  how  distinctive  is  the  particular  problem  
of  the  nomination/confirmation  process  of  Federal  judges  and  justices  and  how  much  is  a  part  
of  the  broader  fabric  of  American  politics.    Forty-­‐one  years  of  watching,  analyzing  American  
politics,  I’ve  –  I  haven’t  seen  it  at  as  low  a  point  in  my  own  personal  view  with  the  triumph  of  
ideology  and  partisanship  over  institutional  responsibilities.      …..pg  2  

:   You  know,  its  obligatory  for  politicians  to  talk  about  American  exceptionalism,    you  
know,  we  are  the  best  of  all  possible  political  systems,  and  of  course  we  have  the  best  health  
care  and  we  have  the  best  everything.    Well,  it  just  isn’t  so.      …..pg  2  

:   …but,  Manus,  I  really  want  to  sort  of  challenge  the  notion  that  you  can  expect  a  
democracy  to  work  effectively  based  on  the  specific  and  most  intense  priorities  that  you  seem  
to  imagine  coming  from  the  public.    If  good  government  depended  entirely  on  a  citizenry  that  
was  very  clearly,  rationally,  in  an  informed  basis,  sort  of  laying  out  what  needed  to  be  done,  this  
republic  would  have  ended  a  long  time  ago.    There  really  is  a  division  of  labor  and  people  in  
government  have  a  responsibility.      …..pg  18  

:   But  I’m  wondering  if  in  the  end  the  roots  of  the  problem  are  so  deep,  they’re  manifest  
in  the  development  of  parliamentary-­‐like  parties  that  are  ideologically  polarized  and  internally  
homogeneous  with  a  rough  level  of  parity  between  the  parties  making  the  stakes  extremely  
high  for  any  action  taken  in  the  Congress,  House,  and  Senate,  which  prevents  the  very  kind  of  
give  and  take  negotiation  deliberation  by  which  the  institution  used  to  work.      …..pg23  

Eleanor  Acheson(Amtrak  General  Counsel/Former  Assistant  Attorney  General)  

:   Notwithstanding  what  the  President  said  during  the  campaign,  it  is  now,  we  have  to  
sadly  acknowledge,  clear  that  once  in  office,  or  even  before  he  came  into  office,  he  had  not  
established  the  priority  or  invested  the  resources  necessary  to  build  the  infrastructure  for  the  
federal  judicial  appointment  process  and  to  focus  on  sort  of  the  biggest  dynamic  sword  that  
there  is  in  that  –there  are  two—one  is  nominations  and  to  keep  the  nominations  pipeline  up  to  
the  Senate  full  at  all  times.    Your  highest  calling  is  to  have  a  nominee  for  every  vacancy  and  that  
   7  

is  absolutely  critical  because  if  you  do  not  have  that  kind  of  pressure,  whatever  it  is  you  run  
into,  you  do  not  have  the  standing  to  complain  about  a  lot,    ……pg  3  

:   And  you  second  big,  sort  of,  light  sword  that  you  have  is  the  President  himself,  the  
President  talking  all  the  time  about  judicial  appointments  and  how  important  they  are  in  a  
particular  context,  which  I  will  get  to  later,  and  yet—as  yet,  unfortunately,  we  have  heard  
nothing  from  President  Obama  since  his  inauguration.        …..pg  4  

:   …is  that  the  person  who  wrote  the  playbook  for  how  this  needs  to  be  done  is  George  W.  
Bush,  and  if  you  read  in  judicature  the  four  years—or  actually  the  eight  years,  the  ….when  you  
step  back  and  read  the  last  one  they  did  that  sums  up  the  entire  GWB  administration,  you  see  
what  was  done  there  and  it  is  the  gamebook,  the  playbook  for  how  ;you  have  to  do  this.    You  
have  to  start  thinking  you’re  going  to  be  elected  president.    You  have  to  have  people  lined  up.    
You  have  to  have  a  really  good  process  that’s  sufficiently  staffed  and  led  by  people  who  know  
what  they’re  doing.      …..pg  4  

:   …,  but  the  second  problem  is  clearly  the  Senate  and,  you  know,  it’s  just  not  possible  to  
live  in  the  United  States  and  not  think  that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  just  a  mess,  
whether  you’re  on  the  left  or  you’re  on  the  right,  it  is  just  a  –  just  a  disaster.      …..pg  5  

:   And  in  doing  this  all  you  were  doing  is  essentially  contributing  to  the  guerilla  warfare  
manual  that  has  been  developed  over  the  years  to  establish  yet  new  tactics  and  new  fronts  in  
the  increasingly  collateral  warfare  that  has  taken  the  Senate  far  from  its  duty  to  exercise  its  
advice  and  consent  responsibility  for  federal  judges.          …..pg  5  

:   And  I  don’t  think  that  so  much  because  of  nominees  are  entitled  to  a  vote,  that’s  
because  the  Constitution,  I  believe,  really  means  that  the  Senate  needs  to  give  those  people  a  
vote,    That’s  part  of  their  duty.    They  can  advise  and  they  can  choose  not  to  consent,  but  they  
ought  to  do  it.    That’s  the  weight  of  their  constitutional  responsibility,  and  they  owe  it  to  the  
courts  as  we  heard  from  the  judges.      …..pg  5  

:   But  none  of  that  appears  to  be,  you  know,  where  they’re  headed.    If  they  were,  if  you  
had  people  in  the  Senate—and  I  think  there  are  some  new  members  who  seem  to  be  
understanding  that  this  is,  as  somebody  said  earlier,  a  race  to  the  bottom,  and  mutual  
immolation  bringing  the  court  system  down  with  it  is  really  what,  in  the  end,  will  come.    What  
needs  to  happen  is  a  reform  process  that  establishes  a  regular  order  of  action  at  the  committee  
and  on  the  floor,  regular  hearings—regularly  scheduled  hearings—for  judges  and  that  will  put  
pressure  on  the  executive  branch  to  get  people  up  there.      …..pg  6  

:   There  should  be  reasonable  time  limits  on  not  only  committee  holds—holdovers  or  
holds,  but  holds  on  the  floor,    And,  finally,  there’s  got  to  be  transparency,  not  only  about  the  
   8  

objector,  who  the  objector  is,  the  person  who’s  got  the  hold,  but  what  the  objection  is,  ……..pg  
6  

:   And  the  last  problem  that  I  see,  which  frankly  is  the  most  pervasive  and  damaging  and  
difficult  to  remedy,  and  we’ve  talked  about,  you  know,  one  aspect  of  it  in  a  very  ,  very  good  
panel,  the  politicization  and  this  fear  that  somehow  any  appointment  is  tilting  one’s—the  
whole  court  system,  sort  of,  more  in  favor  of  one  ideology,  one  philosophy,  one  party,  than  
another.    But  what’s  really  gotten  implicated  in  all  of  this,  I  think,  which  is  another  way  to  look  
at  the  problem,  is  that  there  is  this  pervasive,  damaging,  highly  difficult  to  remedy  problem  of  a  
widening,  a  very  large  and  widening  failure  to  understand,  lack  of  understanding  of,  and  regard  
for  the  public  administration  of  justice  and  for  the  critical  core  element,  the  judges,  are  in  the  
fair,  timely,  and  efficient  administration  of  justice,  total  lack  of  understanding  about  the  people  
who  put  themselves  forward  as  candidates  and  nominees,  and  also  what  judges  really  do.    
…..pg  7  

:   The  executive  certainly  has  some  responsibility  to  the  extent  it  fails  in  its  duty  to  have  
nominations  up  there  for  every  vacancy,  but  it  is  really  the  Senate,  and  it  is  reflected  in  and  
illustrated  by  the  politicization  of  the  judicial  appointment  process  and  the  courts  generally,  the  
stalling  of  the  process,  which  has  completely  eroded  the  candidate  base.      …..pg  8  

:   But  nonetheless,  presidents  have  responsibilities.    So,  I  would  just  argue  that  this  is  a  
core  thing  that  we  have  ask  our  presidents  to  focus  on,  whoever  they  are,  and  I  think  the  
Senate  bears,  you  know,  concomitant—you  know,  the  matching  responsibility,  and  it’s  got  to  be  
pressed.    And  the  Senate’s  not  going  to  anything  if  nothing  comes  up  there  for  it  to  do  and  so  
the  President’s  got  two  jobs,  he’s  got  to  get  stuff  up  there  for  the  Senate  to  do,  and  then  he’s  
got  to  pound  on  them  to  do  it.      ……pg  21  

:   Also  think  about  how  the  blue  slip  has  been  used,  right,  this  practice  that  allows  the  
home  state  senators  to  essentially  put  a  quiet  kibosh  on  a  nomination.    Well,  some  of  the  
Senate  Judiciary  Committee  in  recent  years  have  said,  well,  I’m  not  going  to  let  the  blue  slip  be  
dispositive,  I’m  not  going  to  let  the  home  state  senators  automatically  veto  nominees,  that’s  
because  salience  is  pretty  widespread  across  the  Senate  and  they’re  not  simply    going  to  defer  
to  home  state  senators.      …..pg  23  

Manus  Cooney  (TCH  Group/former  majority  staff  director-­‐US  Senate  Judiciary  Committee)  

:   -­‐-­‐importantly  in  this  area  you  need  a  will,  and  on  the  part  of  both  the  executive  and  
legislative  branches  of  government.    I’m  not  sure  that  always  exists  and  I  think  that  that’s  an  
important  thing  to  bear  in  mind.        …..pg  9  
   9  

:   So,  the  question  one  has  to  ask  right  now  is,  is  the  judicial  appointments  and  
confirmation  process  a  priority  in  Washington?    I  would  say  citing  some  of  what  Eldie  just  
pointed  out  that  it  is  not.        …..pg  10  

:   On  this  issue,  there  is  not  sufficient  presidential  leadership  to  force  a  focusing  of  the  
mind  of  policymakers  to  try  to  reach  agreement.      …..pg  10  

:   So,  I  agree  with  Eldie,  it’s  a  big  problem  to  the  extent  it’s  keeping  more  qualified  people  
from  submitting  their  names.    I  would  agree  that  it’s  unfair  to  the  nominees,  whether  they  be  
Democrat  or  Republican  nominees.    You  look  at  the  length  of  time  it  takes  to  get  from  
appointment  to  confirmation,  regardless  of  which  President  made  it,  the  of  time  it  can  take  in  
the  Senate,  just  isn’t  right.      …..pg  11  

:   Unfortunately,  you  know,  at  the  end—when  you  look  at  it,  unlike  legislation—Senator  
Hatch,  when  I  worked  for  him,  I  always  used  to  say  that  you  can’t  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  
you’re  dealing  with  individuals  not  legislation,  not  ideas,  and  these  people  have  careers,  they  
have  reputations,  they  have  families  and  the  like,  and  they  deserve  better.      …..pg  11  

:   So,  it’s  going  to  require  a  big  fix,  a  long  term  fix,  and  something  that  can  be  enforced  
regardless  of  who’s  in  power,  whichever  party  it  may  be,  and  so  you  do  need  to  add  other  
stakeholders.        …..pg  12  

:   And  so  I  think  that—forgive  me  for—I  don’t  know  that  there’s  any  one  particular  issue,  
one  reform  I  would  suggest  that  might  change  the  dynamic—I  the  think  the  reality  is,  I  think,  
you,  we  have  to  realize  in  the  grand  scheme  of  things  this  just  isn’t  as  important  as  it  is  to  many  
of  the  people  in  this  room  to  the  general  population,  and  if  it  is,  we  need  to  elevate  it  somehow  
and  the  way  to  do  it  isn’t  to  continue  to  just  preach  to  the  choir,  it’s  to  go  out  and  reach  out  to  
other  stakeholders,  being  them  into  the  room,  and  create  a  broader  coalition  of  allied  interests  
to  elevate  this  and  get  the  President  to  pay  attention  and  to  convince  people  in  Congress  and  
the  Senate,  in  particular,  that  there’s  a  political  price  to  be  paid  for  not  taking  action.      …..pg  18  

:   I  raise  that  simply  to  point  out  that  it’s—votes  can  be  forced  on  judicial  nominations,  
but  is  there  a  political  will  to  do  it  in  the  face  of  so  many  other  pressing  priorities  and  so  many  
other  areas  of  responsibility  for  the  Congress  and  the  Senate,  in  particular.    And  so  to  Thomas’  
point,  I  agree  that  in  a  perfect  world  good  government  would  develop  and  arrive  and  think  that  
some  of  the  things  suggested  here  could  put  in  place  a  structure  that  would  make  it  easier  for  
government  and  a  select  judicial  appointments  process  to  work  more  fluidly  and  subject  to  less  
political  gamesmanship.      …..pg  19  

 
   10  

Sarah  Binder(Brookings  Institution)  

:   First,  if  past  patterns  of  and  in  advice  and  consent  are  at  all  predictive  about  the  current  
Senate,  then  I  don’t  think  we  should  expect  to  see  the  current  logjam  broken  any  time  soon.      
…..pg  12  

:   I  don’t  think  we  should  expect  the  Senate  to  rubber  stamp  nominees.    I  think  delay,  in  
fact,  often  taking  time  to  scrutinize  nominees  who  are  going  to  get  lifetime  appointments  to  
the  bench  does  make  sense,  but  we  do  have  to  wonder  about  the  exponential  increase  in  delay  
confirmation  times  over  the  past  20+-­‐-­‐20,  30  years.      ……pg  13  

:   The  fourth  trend  here  to  note  that  was  touched  on  in  the  first  panel,  I  believe,  is  that  
conflict  has  now  spilled  over  to  confirmation  politics  for  consideration  of  district  court  
nominees,  nominees  which  we  thought  typically,  at  least  looking  at  the  patterns  here,  were  
relatively  immune  to  partisan  disputes  because  they  really  are  trial  courts,  they  are  not  courts  
of  last  resort….          …..pg13  

:   I  may  tend  more  toward  institutional  solutions  rather  than  relying  on  senator’s  
improved  behavior,  but  of  course  any  successful  reform  is  probably  going  to  rely  a  little  bit  on  
both  behavior  and  institutions.    One  idea  floated  in  the  advice  and  consent  book  out  front  is  to  
have  some  sort  of  mechanism  for  moving  to  a  fast  track  procedure  for  confirmation  votes.    
……..The  question  then  is  what  would  precipitate  a  fast  track?          …..pg  16