This report examines the role that home state Senators, historically and in the contemporary era, have played in the selection of nominees to U.S. district court and circuit court of appeals judgeships. It also identifies issues that have arisen in recent years over the role of home state Senators in the selection process for federal judges. Report findings include the following: Supported by the custom of “senatorial courtesy,” Senators of the President’s party have long played, as a general rule, the primary role in selecting candidates for the President to nominate to district court judgeships in their states. They also have played an influential, if not primary, role in recommending candidates for circuit court judgeships associated with their states. For Senators who are not of the President’s party, a consultative role, with the opportunity to convey to the President their views about candidates under consideration for judgeships in their states, also has been a long-standing practice—and one supported by the “blue slip” procedure of the Senate Judiciary Committee; In recent and many past Congresses, the Judiciary Committee’s blue slip procedure has reinforced Senators’ influence over judicial nominations in their state by permitting nominations to receive committee action only when both home state Senators have returned “positive” blue slips; Senators, in general, exert less influence over the selection of circuit court nominees than they do over district court nominee selection. Whereas home state Senators of the President’s party often dictate whom the President nominates to district judgeships, their recommendations for circuit nominees, by contrast, typically compete with names suggested to the Administration by other sources or generated by the Administration on its own; Whether and how a state’s two Senators share in the judicial selection role may depend, to a great extent, on their respective prerogatives, party affiliations, and interests. Senators have great discretion as to the procedures they will use to identify and evaluate judicial candidates, ranging from informally conducting candidate searches on their own to relying on nominating commissions to evaluate candidates. Contact between a Senator’s office and the Administration can be expected to clarify the nature of the Senator’s recommending role, including the degree to which the Administration, in its judicial candidate search, will rely on the Senator’s recommendations; If a President selects a district or circuit court nominee against the advice of, or without consulting, a home state Senator, the latter must decide whether to oppose the nomination (either first in the Senate Judiciary Committee or later on the Senate floor). In recent years, the role of home state Senators in recommending judicial candidates has given rise to various issues, including the following: What constitutes “good faith” or “serious” consultation by the Administration? Should home state Senators always have the opportunity to provide their opinion of a judicial candidate before he or she is nominated?; How differently should the Administration treat the input of Senators, depending on their party affiliation?; What prerogatives should home state Senators have in the selection of circuit court nominees?; Should the policy of the Judiciary Committee allow a home state Senator to block committee consideration of a judicial nominee? Conversely, should the Judiciary Committee and the Senate, as matter of courtesy, approve judicial nominees supported by home state Senators?; Should home state Senators use commissions to aid them in selecting judicial candidates to recommend to the President?

Role of Home State Senators in the Selection of Lower Federal Court Judges

Politics & Social Sciences

Rutkus, Denis Steven

Politics & Government

CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform

Part of the Government Series, from TheCapitol.Net The procedure for appointing a Supreme Court Justice is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The "Appointments Clause" (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court." The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged. To receive lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Since the end of the Civil War, almost every Supreme Court nomination received by the Senate has first been referred to and considered by the Judiciary Committee before being acted on by the Senate as a whole. This book explores the appointment process--from Presidential announcement, Judiciary Committee investigation, confirmation hearings, vote, and report to the Senate, through Senate debate and vote on the nomination. Summary of Contents Ch. 1. Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate, by Denis Steven Rutkus Ch. 2. Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and Floor Procedure, by Elizabeth Rybicki Ch. 3. Evolution of the Senate's Role in the Nomination and Confirmation Process: A Brief History, by Betsy Palmer Ch. 4. Proper Scope of Questioning of Supreme Court Nominees: The Current [2005] Debate," by Denis Steven Rutkus Ch. 5. Constitutionality of a Senate Filibuster of a Judicial Nomination, by Todd Tatelman Ch. 6. Cloture Attempts on Nominations, by Richard S. Beth and Betsy Palmer Ch. 7. Changing Senate Rules or Procedures: The 'Constitutional' or 'Nuclear' Option, by Betsy Palmer Ch. 8. 'Entrenchment' of Senate Procedure and the 'Nuclear Option' for Change: Possible Proceedings and Their Implications, by Richard S. Beth Ch. 9. "Consideration and Debate on the Senate Floor: Filibusters," "Cloture in Senate Floor Proceedings," "Steps to Invoke Cloture," and "Senate Procedures under Cloture," Sections 8.210-8.232, from the Congressional Deskbook, by Michael Koempel and Judy Schneider Ch. 10. "Congress and the Executive: Appointments" and "Confirmation Procedure," Sections 10.81-10.81 from the Congressional Deskbook, by Michael Koempel and Judy Schneider Ch. 11. "Nominations to Federal Courts" and "Gathering Information on a Judicial Nominee," Sections 10.121-10.122 from the Congressional Deskbook, by Michael Koempel and Judy Schneider Ch. 12. Other Resources Complete Table of Contents at www.TCNSCN.com

Supreme Court Nominations: Presidential Nomination, the Judiciary Committee, Proper Scope of Questioning of Nominees, Senate Consideration, Cloture, and the Use of the Filibuster (Government Series)

Rybicki, Elizabeth

Palmer, Betsy

Tatelman, Todd

Law Practice

The Capitol.Net

Supported by the custom of "senatorial courtesy," Senators of the President's party have long played, as a general rule, the primary role in selecting candidates for the President to nominate to federal district court judgeships in their states. They also have played an influential, if not primary, role in recommending candidates for federal circuit court judgeships associated with their states. For Senators who are not of the President's party, a consultative role, with the opportunity to convey to the President their views about candidates under consideration for judgeships in their states, also has been a long-standing practice -- and one supported by the "blue slip" procedure of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators, in general, exert less influence over the selection of circuit court nominees. Whereas home state Senators of the President's party often dictate whom the President nominates to district judgeships, their recommendations for circuit nominees, by contrast, typically compete with names suggested to the Administration by other sources or generated by the Administration on its own. Whether and how a state's two Senators share in the judicial selection role will depend, to a great extent, on their respective prerogatives and interests. Senators have great discretion as to the procedures they will use to identify and evaluate judicial candidates, ranging from informally conducting candidate searches on their own to relying on nominating commissions to evaluate candidates. Contact between a Senator's office and the Administration can be expected to clarify the nature of the Senator's recommending role, including the degree to which the Administration, in its judicial candidate search, will rely on the Senator's recommendations. If a President selects a district or circuit court nominee against the advice of, or without consulting, a home state Senator, the latter must decide whether to oppose the nomination (either first in the Senate Judiciary Committee or later on the Senate floor). From the Senator's standpoint, opposition to the nomination might serve a number of purposes, including helping to prevent confirmation or influencing the Administration to take consultation more seriously in the future. On the other hand, various considerations might influence the Senator not to oppose the nomination, including the desirability of filling the vacant judgeship as promptly as possible and, if more home state vacancies are possible in the future, whether these might provide the Senator a better opportunity for exerting influence over judicial appointments. In recent years, the role of home state Senators in recommending judicial candidates has given rise to various issues, including the following: What constitutes "good faith" or "serious" consultation by the Administration? Should home state Senators always have the opportunity to provide their opinion of a judicial candidate before he or she is nominated? How differently should the Administration treat the input of Senators, depending on their party affiliation? What prerogatives should home state Senators have in the selection of circuit court nominees? Should the policy of the Judiciary Committee allow a home state Senator to block committee consideration of a judicial nominee?

Administrative Law

Nova Science Pub Inc

See the best price to sell, buy, or rent books by Rutkus, Denis Steven. BookScouter helps to compare book prices from 25+ online bookstores and 30+ buyback vendors with a single search.

Books by Rutkus, Denis Steven