---

---

Maybe recess nominations are the way to go for a while

by Greg Krehbiel on 18 January 2004

The current procedure for getting a judge on the bench — to serve an appointment for life! — goes like this. The president picks someone he likes, the political opposition finds some little thing in the nominee’s background that can be twisted and stretched to sound awful, then a political fight ensues and the president is pressured to give something on some other point to loose the lock on his nominee.

It’s a circus.

One weapon the president has is the recess nomination, which installs the appointee until the end of the current Congress — usually about a year — after which the nominee has to be approved by the Senate to keep his post.

I believe we are currently suffering under a runaway judiciary. Giving judges a life term was supposed to keep the judiciary out of politics, and while that’s a good goal, it hasn’t worked. The nomination process is horribly political, and once judges get on the bench, they can essentially do whatever they want. Congress has shirked its responsibility to act as a check. Life-appointed Judges turn into monsters who mangle the law and the constitution.

Something else has to be done. I don’t think I want judges elected by the public, and I certainly don’t want them appointed solely by the president. Perhaps simply giving them a renewable term of, say, seven years, would help, but I’m not sure.

In the meanwhile, recess nominations might be the way to jolt the system and get people talking about a real, long-term solution.

See Bush installs Pickering on appeals court, bypassing Democrats

2004-01-18  »  Greg Krehbiel