This morning began with 25 highly qualified judicial nominees who have been cleared by committee - 23 of them with strong bipartisan support and 21 unanimously - eligible for a quick floor vote. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans allowed only two of them to have a vote.
On the Senate floor today, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy blasted the GOP for their ongoing obstruction. After noting the fact that ten percent of the nation's courts are vacant, he turned to the consequences of preventing our nation's courtrooms from having enough judges to operate effectively.
[A Wall Street Journal article last week] highlights that over 2,000 citizens of Merced California who filed suit in 2007 over toxic chemical contamination stemming from a 2006 flood are still awaiting resolution, and only one civil trial has been held in the matter. In the article, Senior Judge W. Royal Furgeson of the Northern District of Texas is quoted warning that if decisions on contracts, mergers and intellectual-property rights "can't be reached through quick and prompt justice, things unravel for business." ...
A report published last month by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts demonstrates the extent of these delays in Federal court. Across the country, there are over 15,000 civil cases that have been pending for more than three years without resolution. The Administrative Office's data show that many of the circuits with the highest number of vacant district judgeships also have the highest backlog of pending cases. The Ninth Circuit has over 1,700 civil cases that have been pending for more than three years. There are currently 14 district judgeships vacant in that circuit, including five vacancies that the Administrative Office has classified as judicial emergency vacancies. The Fifth Circuit has over 1,300 civil cases that have been pending for more than three years. There are eight district judgeships vacant in that circuit, six of which are emergency vacancies.
Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day in court. While three years may be necessary for some of the most complex business disputes, it is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who are seeking their day in court. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait for three years before a judge rules on his or her case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.
Those who routinely prevent votes on consensus nominees apparently have other priorities than the rule of law and the ability of Americans to have their day in court.