[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 38, Number 44 (Monday, November 4, 2002)]
[Pages 1890-1892]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on the Judicial Confirmation Process

October 30, 2002

    Thank you all very much. Thank you, Al. He's--everybody must have a 
good lawyer, and I got one in Al Gonzales.
    I want to welcome you all here to the White House. Thank you for 
coming.
    The Federal courts play a central role in American justice, 
protecting the innocent, punishing the guilty, resolving disputes, and 
upholding the rule of law. Yet, today, our Federal courts are in crisis.
    The judicial confirmation process does not work as it should. 
Nominees are too often mistreated; votes are delayed; hearings are 
denied. And dozens of Federal judgeships sit empty, and this endangers 
the quality of justice in America. Everyone knows these facts. Everyone 
knows the system isn't working. These concerns are not new, and we will 
not find a solution in an endless cycle of blame and bitterness.
    Today I'm proposing a clean start for the process of nominating and 
confirming Federal judges. We must have an evenhanded, predictable 
procedure from the day a vacancy is announced to the day a new judge is 
sworn in. This procedure should apply now and in the future, no matter 
who lives in this house or who controls the Senate. We must return 
fairness and dignity to the judicial confirmation process.
    I want to thank the Judge, Al Gonzales, for working on this 
initiative, and I want to thank his team for working hard. I appreciate 
John Ashcroft's service to our country. He is a great Attorney General, 
and I'm not saying that just because his wife and her twin sister are 
here. [Laughter]
    I'm so pleased that Ted Olson, the Solicitor General, is with us. I 
thank Fred Fielding, the former counsel to President Ronald Reagan. Boyd 
Gray is with us, former Counsel to Number 41. Dennis Archer is with us 
today, president-elect of the American Bar Association and, of course, 
the former mayor of Detroit. Mr. Mayor, thank you for coming. Thomas 
Hayward, chair of the Committee of Federal Judicial Improvements for the 
American Bar Association, and all of you, thank you for your interest in 
this subject.

[[Page 1891]]

    Nearly 18 months ago, at an event right here in the East Room, I 
introduced my first 11 nominees to the court of appeals. I urged 
Senators of both parties to provide a fair hearing and a prompt vote to 
each nominee. Thus far, only 3 of these 11 nominations have been brought 
to a vote in the United States Senate.
    The eight who are stalled in the Judiciary Committee include people 
such as John Roberts. John Roberts has argued 38 cases before the 
Supreme Court. He has served as Deputy Solicitor General of the United 
States. He's widely regarded as one of the best Supreme Court lawyers in 
America.
    And they include Miguel Estrada, who has argued 15 cases before the 
U.S. Supreme Court and has served in the Justice Department, under 
Presidents of both political parties, as a Federal prosecutor and as the 
Assistant to the Solicitor General.
    The Judiciary Committee has prevented full Senate action on people 
such as Priscilla Owen, who has served brilliantly on the Texas Supreme 
Court since 1995 and was overwhelmingly reelected by the people of Texas 
in the year 2000.
    Mr. Roberts, Mr. Estrada and Justice Owen have the highest ratings 
from the American Bar Association, which some Democrat Senators have 
called ``the gold standard.'' They have broad support among lawyers in 
both political parties. Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Estrada have the 
support of former President Clinton's Solicitor General. Justice Owen is 
supported by three former Democrat justices of the Texas Supreme Court.
    In all, I have sent to the Senate 32 nominees for the court of 
appeals. They are well-qualified men and women with experience, 
intelligence, character, and bipartisan home-State support. They 
represent the mainstream of American law and American values. Yet the 
Senate has confirmed only 14 of these 32 nominees, which is far below 
the pace of past Senates at the start of an administration. It's a lousy 
record. Not one of my nine pending nominees to fill vacancies on the 
Sixth and DC Circuit Courts has received a Senate vote, not one. As of 
November, 15 of my appeals court nominees will have been forced to wait 
over a year for a hearing. That's more in this Presidency than under the 
previous nine Presidents combined.
    There's no good reason why any nominee should endure a year, a year 
and a half, or more, without the courtesy of an up-or-down floor vote. 
There is not one good reason why. Whatever the explanation, we clearly 
have a poisoned and polarized atmosphere in which well-qualified 
nominees are neither voted up or down; they are just left in limbo. This 
is unfair to the nominees and their families. This process discourages 
good people from serving as judges. It's also unfair to the courts 
themselves, which are forced to handle a growing caseload without the 
judges they need.
    Nine percent of all Federal judgeships in America are now vacant--9 
percent. Of the 12 regional courts of appeals, the courts right below 
the Supreme Court, there is a 17-percent vacancy rate. The Court of 
Appeals for the DC court, which rules on many significant Constitutional 
and regulatory issues, now operates with one-third of its judgeships 
empty. And the Sixth Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky and Ohio, 
Michigan and Tennessee, is nearly half empty, with 9 active judges doing 
the work of 16.
    Meanwhile, the number of Federal appeal court filings reached an 
all-time high this year. Benches are empty; the number of court filings 
has increased to an all-time high. We can expect them to increase even 
further as a result of the war on terror, corporate fraud prosecutions, 
and issues arising out of the September the 11th attacks.
    If the judicial vacancies go unfulfilled, we will see more crowded 
dockets and longer delays. The Federal courts will be unable to act in a 
timely manner to protect constitutional rights, to resolve civil 
disputes, and enforce the criminal laws, the environmental laws, and the 
civil rights laws that affects the lives and liberties of every single 
American. Chief Justice Rehnquist has called this situation alarming. 
The American Bar Association's report has described the current status 
of the Federal judiciary as an emergency situation.
    The judicial crisis is the result of a broken system, and we have a 
duty to repair it. I want to work with the Senate to fashion a

[[Page 1892]]

new approach to filling Federal court vacancies. We should leave behind 
the arguments and grievances of the past. We need to fix this problem 
together. That's why we've come to Washington, to fix problems, and each 
branch of Government can contribute, and must contribute, to a better 
system.
    So today I'm offering four specific proposals to break the logjam in 
Washington and bring the Federal courts of appeals and district courts 
to full strength.
    First, I call on Federal judges on the courts of appeals and 
district courts to notify the President of their intention to retire at 
least a year in advance, whenever this is possible. Because the 
nomination and confirmation of a Federal judge is a lengthy process 
under the best of circumstances, judges who retire without advance 
notice can unintentionally create a judicial vacancy that can last for 
many months. The request for one year advance notice builds on existing 
policy of the judiciary and will help us work toward a system in which a 
new Federal judge is ready to take the bench on a day the sitting judge 
retires. That's the goal.
    Second, I propose that Presidents submit a nomination to the Senate 
within 180 days of receiving notice of a Federal court vacancy or 
intended retirement. In other words, we have a responsibility as well to 
make sure the judiciary is sound and whole. This will speed up the 
sometimes time-consuming process of obtaining recommendations and 
evaluations from home-State Senators and Representatives and Governors 
and bar leaders, while leaving ample time for Presidents to vet and 
choose nominees of the highest quality.
    Third, I call on the Senate Judiciary--Senate Judiciary Committee to 
commit to holding a hearing within 90 days of receiving a nomination. A 
strict deadline is the best way to ensure that judicial nominees are 
promptly and fairly considered, and 90 days is more than enough time for 
the committee to conduct necessary research before holding a hearing. 
That's plenty of time.
    Finally, I call on the full Senate to commit to an up-or-down floor 
vote on each nominee no later than 180 days after the nomination is 
submitted. This is a very generous period of time that will allow all 
the Senators to evaluate nominees and have their votes counted.
     Our proposals would not favor Democrats or Republicans. The plan 
would be fair and would apply to--regardless of who the President is. It 
doesn't matter who the President is. What matters is a system which 
works.
    For the first time in years, the judicial confirmation process would 
work as it was intended to work. All Senators would have a chance to 
make their voices heard and their views known, and that's important. All 
nominees would have the certainty of an up-or-down Senate floor vote 
within a reasonable period of time, and that is important. All 
Presidents would know that their judicial nominations would be addressed 
promptly. All Americans would see a more dignified process and have 
their Federal courts fully staffed to protect their rights and their 
liberties. And the vacancy crisis would be resolved once and for all.
    I urge every Member of the Senate, in particular those serving on 
the Judiciary Committee, to carefully consider this new beginning for 
the judicial nomination process, to weigh their responsibilities, to 
look at the vacancy problem we have, to act in a responsible fashion.
    The failure of the judicial confirmation process is harming the 
administration of justice in America. That is a fact. The current state 
of affairs is not merely another round of political wrangling. It is a 
disturbing failure to meet our responsibilities under the Constitution. 
The Constitution has given us a shared duty, and we must meet that duty 
together.
    Thank you all for coming.

Note: The President spoke at 1:40 p.m. in the East Room at the White 
House. In his remarks, he referred to Attorney General Ashcroft's wife, 
Janet Ashcroft, and sister-in-law, Anne Giddings; and former Solicitor 
General Seth P. Waxman.