Biden issues veto threat on bill expanding federal judiciary as partisan
split emerges
Send a link to a friend
[December 11, 2024]
By KEVIN FREKING
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans teed up a vote this week on
bipartisan legislation to gradually expand by 66 the number of federal
judgeships across the country. Democrats, though, are having second
thoughts now that President-elect Donald Trump has won a second term.
The White House said Tuesday that if President Joe Biden were presented
with the bill, he would veto it. A Congress closely divided along party
lines would be unlikely to overturn a veto, likely dooming the bill’s
chances this year.
It's an abrupt reversal for legislation that the Senate passed
unanimously in August. But the GOP-led House waited until after the
election to act on the measure, which spreads out the establishment of
the new district judgeships over about a decade to give three
presidential administrations the chance to appoint the new judges.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said the bill was negotiated with the
understanding that three unknown, future presidents would have the
chance to expand and shape the judiciary. No party would be knowingly
given an advantage. He said he begged GOP leadership to take up the
measure before the presidential election. But they did not do so.
“It was a fair fight and they wanted no part of it,” Nadler said.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e51d7/e51d76c97c96255d3e654f731da5768b0cb152da" alt=""
Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, explained the timing this way: “We just didn't get to the
legislation."
The change of heart about the bill from some Democrats and the new
urgency from House Republicans for considering it underscores the
contentious politics that surrounded federal judicial vacancies.
Senate roll-call votes are required for almost every judicial nominee
these days, and most votes for the Supreme Court and appellate courts
are now decided largely along party lines. Lawmakers are generally
hesitant to hand presidents from the opposing party new opportunities to
shape the judiciary.
Nadler said that the bill would give Trump 25 judicial nominations on
top of the 100-plus spots that are expected to open up over the next
four years.
“Donald Trump has made clear that he intends to expand the power of the
presidency and giving him 25 new judges to appoint gives him one more
tool at his disposal to do that,” Nadler said.
Nadler said he's willing to take up comparable legislation in the years
ahead and give the additional judicial appointments to “unknown
presidents yet to come,” but until then, he was urging colleagues to
vote against the bill.
Still, few are arguing against the merits. Congress last authorized a
new district judgeship more than 20 years ago, while the number of cases
being filed continues to increase with litigants often waiting years for
a resolution.
[to top of second column]
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/35a96/35a968908638b52c8e751b047e666475bb223ec0" alt=""
President Joe Biden speaks about his administrations economic
playbook and the future of the American economy at the Brookings
Institution in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2024. (AP Photo/Susan
Walsh)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ac65c/ac65c0fe49e065ffb5fda58e78b3f4e8a77ec492" alt=""
“I used to be a federal court litigator, and I can tell you it's
desperately needed,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said of the
bill.
Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., first introduced the bill to establish new
judgeships in 2020. Last year, the policy-making body for the
federal court system, the Judicial Conference of the United States,
recommended the creation of several new district and court of
appeals judgeships to meet increased workload demands in certain
courts.
“Judges work tirelessly every day to meet growing demands and
resolve cases as quickly as possible, but with the volume we have
and the shortage of judges we have, it just makes it a very
difficult proposition,” Judge Timothy Corrigan, of the Middle
District of Florida, said in a recent blog post on the website of
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
The blog post states that caseloads are creating delays that will
erode public confidence in the judicial process, but the bill would
meet many of the federal judiciary's needs for more judges.
Jordan said that as of June 30th, there were nearly 750,000 pending
cases in federal district courts nationwide, with each judge
handling an average of 554 filings. When asked if House Republicans
would have brought the bill up if Vice President Kamala Harris had
won the election, Jordan said the bill is “the right thing to do”
and that almost half of the first batch of judges will come from
states where both senators are Democrats, giving them a chance to
provide input on those nominations before Trump makes them.
But in its veto threat, the White House Office of Management and
Budget said the bill would create new judgeships in states where
senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies.
“These efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about
judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force
behind passage of the law,” the White House said.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3fc51/3fc516fb343814e932dfa8b26beaadd1c6d4c8d0" alt=""
Shortly before the White House issued the veto threat, Senate
Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he would be curious
to hear Biden's rationale for such action.
“It’s almost inconceivable that a lame-duck president could consider
vetoing such an obviously prudential step for any reason other than
selfish spite," McConnell said.
All contents © copyright 2024 Associated Press. All rights reserved |