[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1034-1035]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I see the junior Senator from Connecticut 
in the Chamber. If he wishes to speak, it is my understanding this is 
Democratic time now. If he wishes to go before me, that is perfectly 
all right. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his 
remarks I be recognized in morning business because I do want to talk 
about the transportation bill that is coming up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma for his courtesy and his leadership on so many issues.
  Mr. President, I want to particularly say to my colleague from 
Vermont how much I appreciate his leadership on the Judiciary 
Committee, where I serve. Leadership is the mark of his work there. He 
brings together Members of both parties on so many issues, including 
this one involving the Federal judiciary. It is, as he has said so 
eloquently, one of the marvels of the world, one of the historic 
accomplishments of our republican democracy, that we have a truly 
independent judiciary that exemplifies the qualities of 
professionalism, scholarship, integrity, and, yes, independence.
  We are here today because we have a crisis in our judiciary. It is a 
crisis not created by our judges but by this body. It is a judicial 
vacancy crisis because nearly 1 out of 10--I repeat, 1 out of 10--
judgeships in this country are now vacant. The vacancies are double 
what they were at this point in President Bush's first term.
  Every time I go back to Connecticut--as I am sure happens to the 
Presiding Officer in his State of West Virginia and to Senator Inhofe 
in Oklahoma--people ask me: Why can't you do better in Washington? Why

[[Page 1035]]

can't you bring both parties together and avoid the waste and the 
acrimony and rancor and the gridlock that is the reason for this 
judicial vacancy crisis? We need to come together and avoid the kind of 
paralysis that has such lasting and damaging effects on our judiciary.
  The President has done his work in recommending qualified nominees to 
this body. The Judiciary Committee has done its work in reporting many 
of these judicial nominees to the floor, in many cases with unanimous 
support. Despite that unanimous support, those nominations languish 
here.
  As we speak, 19 judicial nominations are still pending on the 
Senate's Executive Calendar. Mr. President, 16 of those nominations 
were reported unanimously to the floor and all but 2 of them are 
consensus nominees who received strong bipartisan support in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  They have been blocked by the Republican minority. They have been 
blocked from up-or-down votes. They have been denied those up-or-down 
votes. That is unfair not only to them but to the American people. It 
is damaging to this country. It undermines the independence of the 
judiciary, its credibility and respect. It causes delays in the 
decisions on cases that vitally affect ordinary men and women who come 
to our Federal courts for justice. The old saying ``justice delayed is 
justice denied'' holds true whether it is the great historic cases of 
this country or the ordinary, mundane, routine cases that involve 
injuries to individual plaintiffs or defendants. And it discourages 
qualified people from permitting their names to be placed in 
nomination. The uncertainty of those delays, the need to put their 
lives on hold, when they are lawyers in private practice or judges 
serving on the bench now, causes a severe disincentive that deters 
qualified people from beginning this uncertain process.
  Outside of Washington, there is a clear consensus that the Senate 
must do better. Outside of the Senate, there is a clear consensus that 
we need bipartisan cooperation. Not just among politically elected 
leaders, but the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, members of 
the bar on both sides of the aisle all agree we must move these 
nominations. So I call on my colleagues, as the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee has done, to do better. President Obama has 
nominated qualified members of the bar to serve on our district courts, 
including, most recently, Michael Shea of my State to replace Judge 
Droney, who has just been confirmed as a member of the court of 
appeals.
  Judge Droney's nomination waited here on the Senate calendar for 130 
days, despite the clear consensus in his favor. Eventually, he was 
confirmed by a vote of 88 to 0. That delay, in turn, caused a delay to 
the nomination of a district court judge to replace him.
  I am hopeful Michael Shea will be confirmed expeditiously.
  We should never minimize the importance of careful vetting and 
scrutiny when it comes to these nominees. But once that process is 
complete in the Judiciary Committee, blocking these nominees can only 
be bad for the American people, as well as for the 160 million 
Americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies whose 
nominees are sitting on the Senate calendar. They should not have their 
ability to access justice denied or delayed. We should reduce the 
burdens on our courts as quickly as possible so our system of justice 
will continue to be--and justifiably--regarded as one of the great 
marvels in the history of democracy, of governance in this world, on 
this planet.
  Our nominees deserve prompt and fair consideration by the full 
Senate, and I am hopeful the Senate will do better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________