Federal Judiciary

Federal Judges - Legal Basis

The Federal Judiciary is managed by the Supreme Court:

The Federal Judiciary - Federal Judges, Magistrates, and the administrative support functions are established by the Constitution and the supporting statutes created by the Congress through the usual legislative process. Federal Judges are nominated by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. They are appointed for life and retire at full pay. Judges' compensation cannot be reduced once appointed. A Federal Judge is removed from office by Impeachment from the House and conviction on the Impeachment by the Senate. It requires conduct at the felony level to even consider Impeachment. This page covers matters related to all Federal Judicial appointees except Supreme Court Justices. Details of Supreme Court appointed are found at: Supreme Court 5-8-08

The Federal Judge shortage problem:

There is substantial political heat on the slow nomination and appointment process for federal judges. There is a reasonably substantial turnover in the Federal Bench judgiciary. Both the President and the Senate have been subject to major criticism for the slow response to fill these jobs.

The process seems to be better since January 1 2011 - but it is still slow.

________________________

A Denver Federal Judge from Denver stepped down from his lifetime appointment the week. Appointed during the first Bush administration, several charges of misconduct have been filed against him. This unusual situation is detailed in the Rocky Mountain News. 10-17-08 Federal Judiciary

Federal Judges have long been one of the most stable and sensible parts of the United States government. In recent months the number of Judges under examination for misconduct has grown dramatically - causing serious alarm across the legal system. A detailed study appears in the Houston Chronicle today. 10-13-08

Federal Judiciary

During the 2008 election cycle, Judicial appointments have moved slowly through the confirmation process. There are two distinct policies causing this process to be slow, with only a few confirmations. The first is the policy of the Democratic controlled Senate against what it considers ultra-conservative nominations of George W. Bush. The second is the optimistic hope of the Democrats that they will prevail in the 2008 elections and as a result, be able to appoint more federal judges when they take office in January, 2009. This is a typical experience in the history of lame duck administrations throughout the history of the United States.

The conservative movement, as incorporated in the Republican Party in the 20th Century has always consider control or major influence in the judiciary, particularly the federal judiciary, a core plank in its political platform. That movement consider Brown v. School District, the Supreme Court decision that compelled the integration of the public school system as a disaster. It grew from the deep influence of the south in that movement. Roe v. Wade, another Supreme Court decision which make a woman's right to abortion national policy. That movement saw the power of the sexual issue implicit in that decision and used it as a lever in the argument for political control of the Judiciary. Second Amendment issues in the Constitution - matters related to guns and gun control - were added to the Conservative agenda - even though funded substantially by gun weapon manufacturers.

The bottom line of that setting is the premier use of Judicial issues in political campaigns. That policy has caused more than a half century of genuinely awful Presidential politics and endless Senate confirmation struggles over Judicial nominations of Presidents of both political parties.

Current Confirmation Process:

Federal Judge nominations have been slow to firm up in the Senate through confirmation in President Obama's administration. As of Labor Day and the current Senate Summer vacation, there are about 100 open judgeships of the roughly 800 federal judge positions authorized under law. Bar Associations and others interested in the federal judiciary are complaining loudly, and probably rightfully. But the situation is more complex than a simple complaint based on numbers.

The Judgeships are a serious prize - probably the most important civilian Presidential appointments - the pay is not great - but these are lifetime appointments with enormous power and it requires a felony level indiscretion to get fired through the impeachment process. In short - they are powerful and long lasting political appointments. The controversy surrounding the appointments is not new - it is inherent in the patronage process for such powerful political positions. Since the Franklin Roosevelt era, the fight has generally been led by the Republican Party, but the Democrats are seriously dogmatic about the nominations too. President's are not about to give up their ability for impact federal law from generations with these appointments so will fight as long as necessary to get their nominations confirmed.

In the present situation, the Senate's "hold" rule and the cloture filibuster rule allow Senators to hold up nominations without explanation, and a minority of 40 Senators to block any up and down vote. These rules seem ready for a change by younger Senators at the start of the 2011 session. We'll see. Senators often bargain with the administration for some special treatment for themselves or for their state to lift a hold. Sometimes this strategy works, sometimes it doesn't - but the process delays confirmation in many cases without much relationship to the appointment itself. (September 8 2010)