[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 43 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION REVISING THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES OF 
             THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 6, 2006

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it has become necessary to introduce a bill 
that is necessary for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to 
function as Congress intended. Federal law requires that judges of the 
Superior Court and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Article I 
Courts, to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. 
This bill, which is the companion bill to S. 2068 introduced by Senator 
Susan Collins, will increase the number of Superior Court judges by 3 
to 61 in order to allow the Superior Court to function at the 58 judge 
level approved by Congress. However, after the establishment of the new 
Family Court Division, the Superior Court was temporarily increased by 
three in order to assist the transition because Congress wanted to 
assure a full complement of family court judges. However, no permanent 
authorization reflecting the changes was approved. Consequently, as 
judges have retired or otherwise moved on, the President has continued 
to make nominations to fill each judge's seat. With no authorization 
for the necessary number of authorized judges, an unintended anomaly 
has resulted in Presidential nominations but no actual vacancies 
because the court is short three judges. Because as many as nearly 2 
years occur after the Senate approval, lawyers are increasingly 
unwilling to give up their practices to apply for judgeships on the 
Superior Court, the trial court of jurisdiction for all criminal and 
civil matters in the District of Columbia. The 15-18 month pipeline for 
confirming new judges has presented the court with some serious 
concerns. With such a long waiting period, private and solo 
practitioners, for example, who are among the best qualified, are 
significantly deterred, and the court loses judicial talent that would 
otherwise be available.
  The present anomaly has forced the Superior Court to use senior or 
retired judges inappropriately. Because they are retired, senior judges 
take on particular cases or a full calendar temporarily, for up to a 
year. However, inasmuch as confirmed active or permanent judges often 
cannot be immediately seated, there is no judge to maintain the court's 
2 calendars, one for criminal court and the other for temporary 
restraining orders and warrants. Consequently, several senior judges 
have taken on this indispensable duty since 2003. While senior judges, 
of course, take on cases, they do so at their discretion. It should 
never be the case that senior judges perform an important regular and 
vital function of the court for years at a time.
  I ask that this bill be approved to remedy this problem in the D.C. 
court system that results entirely from congressional action.

                          ____________________