Suchergebnisse

From the moment that the Grand Old Party (GOP) won the Senate in November 2014, Republicans have directly and incessantly vowed to establish "regular order" in the upper chamber again. Lawmakers employed this phrase to depict the purported restoration of strictures that prevailed until Democrats subverted them. In January 2015, when the 114th Congress began, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Majority Leader, proclaimed, "[w]e need to return to regular order," while the legislator has dutifully recited that mantra ever since. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, espoused analogous concepts. Illustrative was his January 2015 pledge to duly exercise "regular order" in scrutinizing President Barack Obama's excellent mainstream judicial nominees. Because senators have diligently completed practically both sessions of the 114th Congress throughout which the majority trumpeted "regular order," its application to a daunting constitutional responsibility—providing advice and consent on nominees—deserves review. This survey ascertains that counterproductive partisanship suffuses appointments—particularly evidenced by slow panel consideration and the confirmation of eleven jurists all last year, the fewest since President Dwight Eisenhower occupied the White House, and merely nine thus far over 2016.

When Donald Trump became President, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had four judicial vacancies that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) identified as "judicial emergencies." The court also faces a larger caseload than all the other regional circuits, and has frequently decided appeals the least swiftly. The 2016 election returns indicate that more confirmations will be necessary due to additional court members' probable retirement or assumption of senior status during President Trump's administration. Striking politicization could frustrate this effort, however. Soon after the inauguration, President Trump signed a novel executive order proscribing U.S. immigration travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations— which the court of appeals subsequently blocked—leading President Trump to criticize the tribunal as chaotic and the motions panel opinion and the judges who decided the case as "so political." Because the Ninth Circuit resolves the greatest number of filings, and often does so more slowly than other regional circuits even when the tribunal is at full capacity, the compelling need for the President and the Senate to fill these four open positions deserves scrutiny. This essay initially canvasses the appellate vacancy conundrum's rise and continued growth. The essay then descriptively and critically evaluates selection throughout President Barack Obama's administration while reviewing the Ninth Circuit's present situation. Ascertaining that the dilemma resulted partly from limited cooperation between Democrats and Republicans and the fortuity that multiple Ninth Circuit jurists chose to assume senior status near the end of President Obama's tenure, Part III assesses major implications of the vacancy crisis. This section finds that GOP obstruction distinctly exacerbated the rampant partisanship, strident divisiveness, and incessant paybacks that have clearly eviscerated judicial appointments, phenomena which President Trump could intensify, as exemplified by his corrosive rhetoric directed at judges in the Ninth Circuit and the federal bench more generally. Because those complications restrict the delivery of justice while harming entities and individuals engaged in federal court litigation, the final section proffers suggestions for President Trump and the upper chamber to speedily address the Ninth Circuit openings.

Now that President Donald Trump has commenced the fifth month of his administration, federal courts experience 121 circuit and district court vacancies. These statistics indicate that Mr. Trump has a valuable opportunity to approve more judges than any new President. The protracted open judgeships detrimentally affect people and businesses engaged in federal court litigation, because they restrict the expeditious, inexpensive and equitable disposition of cases. Nevertheless, the White House has been treating crucial issues that mandate careful attention-specifically establishing a government, confirming a Supreme Court Justice, and keeping numerous campaign promises. How, accordingly, can President Trump fulfill these critical duties and his constitutional responsibility to nominate and, with Senate advice and consent, appoint judges? This Article initially canvasses judicial appointments in the administration of President Barack Obama. The evaluation ascertains that Republican obstruction allowed the upper chamber to approve merely twenty jurists across the entire 114th Congress, leaving 105 empty seats and fifty-one expired nominations when the Senate adjourned on January 3, 2017. The Republican Senate majority's refusal to confirm a single jurist after July 6, 2016- encompassing three circuit nominees whom the Judiciary Committee approved with bipartisan support and twenty district court aspirants whom the committee voice voted without dissent- could portend that President Trump will renominate comparatively few of President Obama's nominees. The Article then scrutinizes the consequences for the judiciary, the Senate, the President, and the country of confronting many judicial openings. The appeals and district courts require all of their judges to deliver justice, but President Trump addresses numerous troubling concerns -which include global matters, such as the Middle East and the South China Sea, and domestic problems, encompassing health care, economic inequality, and responding to a probe of Russia's efforts to meddle in the 2016 United States elections- and tendered merely one lower court nominee prior to May 8. The last Part, thus, proffers suggestions to fill the numerous openings with a finely-tuned assessment of the persons nominated by emphasizing those who secured committee reports.

During February 2016, President Barack Obama nominated United States District Judge Lucy Haeran Koh to a "judicial emergency" vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She has capably served over multiple years in the Northern District of California competently deciding numerous high-profile lawsuits, specifically regarding intellectual property. Accordingly, the President's efforts to confirm her were unsurprising. However, 2016 was a presidential election year when judicial nominations traditionally slow and ultimately halt. This difficulty was exacerbated when Republicans consistently refused to implement any confirmation process for United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland, the experienced and mainstream nominee whom the chief executive had chosen to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court vacancy during March 2016. Notwithstanding Judge Koh's manifold talents, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not arrange a hearing for the jurist until five protracted months subsequent to her nomination. That hearing proceeded rather smoothly, although the Grand Old Party (GOP) only conducted the nominee's discussion and vote eight weeks later when Koh earned a thirteen to seven approval ballot. Republicans had plentiful weeks over which they could have scheduled a Senate debate and up or down vote yet refused the candidate those procedures and her nomination expired when senators adjourned in early January 2017. Because Koh is a strong and moderate jurist who received nomination for the appellate court, which experiences critical needs for all of its twenty-nine circuit judges to expeditiously, inexpensively, and equitably resolve appeals, California Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris must champion her renomination and President Donald Trump ought to seriously evaluate nominating the jurist again. This piece initially analyzes (1) the comprehensive record assembled by Judge Koh; (2) federal judicial appointments in President Obama's administration, emphasizing 2016 when he selected Koh; and (3) the Ninth Circuit. The paper determines that she was a highly competent and mainstream nominee, while the court of appeals, which confronts four emergency openings, must have its complete contingent to promptly, economically and fairly resolve the United States' most substantial, complex docket. Nevertheless, Republicans would not cooperate, especially after they had won a majority in the 114th Senate, a complication that the 2016 presidential election year magnified, and the GOP furnished Koh no upper chamber debate and vote. The final segment, therefore, provides suggestions for nominating the jurist again and for rapidly confirming her.

Justice Antonin Scalia's death prompted United States Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to argue that the President to be inaugurated on January 20, 2017—not Barack Obama—must fill the empty Scalia post. Obama in turn expressed sympathy for the Justice's family and friends, lauded his consummate public service, and pledged to nominate a replacement "in due time," contending that eleven months remained in his administration for confirming a worthy successor. Obama admonished that the President had a constitutional duty to nominate a superlative aspirant to the vacancy, which must not have persisted for more than one year, while the Senate had a constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the nominee proffered. Because this dynamic affected efficacious Supreme Court operations and precipitated a constitutional standoff, the issue merits analysis. Part I surveys the Constitution's words, policy, practical and political considerations, history, and custom. It ascertains that numerous phenomena demonstrate Obama should have recommended, and did expeditiously tap, a highly competent prospect whom the Senate ought to have promptly and carefully scrutinized. Although President Obama nominated U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland on March 16, the upper chamber majority steadfastly refused to consider the nominee. Therefore, the piece investigates suggestions, especially for breaking the gridlock and according Judge Garland Senate review, which chamber members should have followed but did not consider.

Now that the 114th Congress has reached the first session's conclusion, the purported application of regular order to a major Senate constitutional duty—rendering advice and consent on presidential nominees—merits analysis. This evaluation illuminates serious deficiencies, which plagued 2015 confirmations. Especially important was the GOP's failure to expeditiously suggest aspirants for White House consideration, and specifically failing to fill "judicial emergencies," provide hearings and ballots swiftly, conduct floor debates when required rapidly, and confirm more than 11 judges all year. This obstruction has numerous deleterious consequences; the most significant, however, is not fulfilling the constitutional responsibility to proffer advice and consent on many nominees. This subverts coordinate branch actions. The courts may now lack the judicial resources which they need to quickly, inexpensively, and equitably conclude litigation, while the delay may deprive the President of higher-level officers who insure the laws' faithful execution.

This piece first analyzes the Rule's history. Part II explains the convention and its deleterious consequences. Finding that each party reinterprets the notion to stymie appointments—which perverts the selection process, deprives courts of judicial resources for delivering justice, and intensifies the "confirmation wars"—the final Part proffers solutions. Because the Rule has multiple detrimental effects, it warrants abolition.

Scholars and politicians who closely track the federal judicial selection process appreciate that confirmations slow and ultimately halt over presidential election years, a phenomenon which has greater salience in a chief executive's last administration. The first section of this article canvasses selection in Barack Obama's tenure, ascertaining that Republicans cooperated little and contravened numerous traditions, especially after the party captured a majority. Thus, section two analyzes why the GOP did not collaborate and the consequences. Because that obstruction-which undercuts justice and regard for the coequal branches of government- will actually continue across 2016, the piece surveys devices, which could rectify or ameliorate those critical impacts this presidential election year.

Over 2016, President Barack Obama tapped accomplished, mainstream candidates for seven of twelve federal appeals court vacancies. Nevertheless, the Senate Judiciary Committee has furnished a public hearing and vote for merely three nominees and did not conduct a hearing for any other prospect this year. 2016 concomitantly is a presidential election year in which appointments can be delayed and stopped—a conundrum that Justice Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court vacancy exacerbates. Because appellate courts comprise tribunals of last resort for practically all cases and critically need each of their members to deliver justice, the appointments process merits scrutiny. The Essay first evaluates the records which nominees have previously assembled, President Obama's judicial appointments process, and the appeals courts. It finds that the seven nominees are dynamic, consensus prospects. Republican senators have not collaborated with the Obama Administration, particularly since 2015 when they captured an upper chamber majority, a phenomenon that this presidential election year intensifies. The courts desperately need all of their jurists to rapidly, economically, and fairly treat growing dockets. The last section, accordingly, surveys proposals for Senate review.

In this piece, Professor Carl Tobias descriptively scrutinizes the nomination and confirmation regimes throughout the administration of President Barack Obama. The article critically evaluates selection finding that persistent Republican Senate obstruction resulted in the greatest number of unoccupied posts for the longest duration, briefly moderated by the 2013 detonation of the "nuclear option," which constricted filibusters. Nevertheless, the article contends when the Grand Old Party (GOP) attained a chamber majority, Republicans dramatically slowed the nomination and confirmation processes after January 2015. Therefore, openings surpassed ninety before Congress is scheduled to reassemble. Because this dilemma erodes rapid, inexpensive, and equitable disposition, the article suggests how the Senate should promptly reduce the multitude of unfilled judgeship once the lame duck session commences.

In late April 2015, the Supreme Court of Virginia announced that Justice LeRoy F. Millette, Jr. would retire on July 31, 2015. Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe expeditiously created an open process for tapping a worthy successor. At July's conclusion, the Governor appointed Fairfax County Circuit Judge Jane Marum Roush, an experienced, consensus jurist. On a Sunday night, merely two days after Roush swore her oath of office, Republican General Assembly leaders proclaimed their caucuses' intention to elect another individual, despite conceding that Roush was very qualified. During the August special session, this concerted GOP endeavor prompted a Republican senator to join Democrats who opposed the prospect and concomitantly adjourned. GOP leaders then contended that legislators remained in session, as the Virginia Constitution explicitly prescribes Senate and House of Delegates consent to adjourn. The Governor's Counsel next penned an opinion that concluded that lawmakers had adjourned, so McAuliffe could appoint Justice Roush to the Court again, a choice that he implemented thirty days after adjournment. Because these efforts precipitated a constitutional standoff and will consequently plague future judicial selection, they warrant analysis. The initial part of this Article chronicles the rise and evolution of Virginia court selection. Part Two scrutinizes recent machinations, determining that the procedures now merit improvement. The last section proffers suggestions. For the near term, the Assembly ought to promptly elect Roush. She brings twenty-two years of judicial service, including over five months as a justice. Moreover, Roush's removal for reasons unrelated to her abilities, earlier performance, or future capacity to serve would make a mockery of the selection regime, undermining citizen respect for it, the whole state judiciary, as well as the Governor and the Assembly. Across the longer term, the Commonwealth must evaluate and initiate changes that will enhance selection.

Federal court selection is eviscerated. Across five years in Barack Obama's presidency, the judiciary confronted some eighty-five vacancies because Republicans never agreed to prompt Senate consideration. Only when the Democratic majority ignited the "nuclear option," a rare action that permitted cloture with fewer than sixty votes, did gridlock end. However, openings quickly grew after the Grand Old Party (GOP) captured an upper chamber majority, notwithstanding substantial pledges that it would supply "regular order" again. Over 2015, the GOP cooperated little, approving the fewest jurists since Dwight Eisenhower was President. However, selection might worsen. This year is a presidential election year, a period in which confirmations traditionally slow to a halt, and a predicament that controversy regarding Justice Antonin Scalia's High Court vacancy exacerbates. At the next inauguration, the bench may experience 100 unfilled circuit and trial level positions. These concerns demonstrate that the broken appointments system requires permanent improvement. This survey evaluates confirmations during President Obama's tenure, detecting that Republicans have plumbed new depths for obstruction. Because this recalcitrance undermines judicial selection, the delivery of justice and respect for the coequal branches of government, the analysis proffers multiple long-term solutions, notably a bipartisan judiciary, which could enhance the process.

In June, the Supreme Court held that state proscriptions on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell v. Hodges declared that same-sex couples possess a fundamental right to marry but left implementation's daily particulars to federal, state, and local officials. Because formal recognition of marriage equality is a valuable first step but realizing actual marriage equality will necessitate careful implementation of the Justices' mandate, this effectuation deserves analysis. Part I principally reviews Obergefell's rationale for formal marriage equality. Part II assesses implementation of the Court's mandate. Detecting that a few states and numerous localities have yet to provide comprehensive marriage equality, Part III proffers suggestions for attaining complete equality.

Part I of this article chronicles marriage equality's rise and development nationally. It ascertains that challenges, which fos- tered the invalidation of marriage prohibitions that essentially govern nearly all jurisdictions, including Virginia, have triggered some controversy. Part II scrutinizes Judge Wright Allen's resolu- tion of the Virginia litigation and the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Fourth Circuit determination, which affirmed her ruling. This portion finds that the district jurist comprehensively assessed the relevant legal and factual issues when striking down the proscription while the Fourth Circuit appropriately upheld her opinion. Part III then derives lessons from the story recount- ed because it ascertains that marriage equality in Virginia has clarified, even as the national landscape continues to be relatively unclear. Part IV proffers suggestions for the future.

One crucial locus of gridlock is appointments to the United States Courts of Appeals, which have grown extremely contentious, as the circuits resolve disputes about controversial issues and can effectively be tribunals of last resort for designated areas. Continuous Republican and Democratic charges, recriminations, and divisiveness have roiled the process for decades. The bench constitutes 179 judgeships; however, seventeen remained vacant at President Barack Obama's second inauguration notwithstanding his pledge to end the "confirmation wars" by assiduously consulting senators. Laboring without ten percent of the appellate court members subverts prompt, inexpensive and fair case disposition and undermines citizen respect for selection and the government. These propositions demonstrate that upper chamber gridlock and circuit appointments merit review, which this piece undertakes. Part One explores the conundrum. The assessment concludes that it derives from rampant partisanship and skyrocketing caseloads, which necessitate more judicial positions; they enlarge the number of vacancies, which complicates selection. The paper next descriptively and critically recounts developments in Obama's tenure. Scrutiny reveals that appointees principally comprised very qualified ethnic minority and female jurists who averaged fifty-five years of age upon nomination. Their confirmations improved diversity and signaled the realization of a career judiciary while marginally widening the experience and age range of the appeals courts. Determining that Obama has proffered sufficient, highly competent individuals, whom the Senate Judiciary Committee has robustly approved, to facilitate processing, but that the chamber has neglected to expeditiously vote on many, this Article canvasses promising ideas that will enhance selection and counter gridlock.