December 28, 2018
Republicans should accelerate confirmation of judges in 2019
by Philip Klein
WashingtonExaminer.com
Republican losses in the House have eliminated the possibility of advancing major legislation in 2019, but the party's gains in the Senate have provided a rare opportunity to shape the judiciary with a wave of judges who believe in closely adhering to the U.S. Constitution. Republicans should not squander it.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has already had a lot of success on getting judges confirmed, ensuring it will be the most enduring part of his legacy. Following the death of Antonin Scalia in 2016, he kept a Supreme Court seat open until President Trump could fill it with Justice Neil Gorsuch. During the first two years of the Trump presidency, McConnell has taken good advantage of predecessor Harry Reid's triggering of the "nuclear option" that eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments and allowed confirmations with a simple majority.
Without the need for Democratic votes, in the first two years of the Trump presidency, the Senate has already confirmed 85 federal judges, and the pace has accelerated. In 2017, there were 19 judges confirmed, and in 2018, that number soared to 66. Republicans should try to crush that number in 2019.
There are two overarching factors paving the way for more expedited confirmations. One is that Republicans have 53 votes in the new Senate rather than 51, meaning McConnell has three votes to spare. On top of this, the composition of the Senate is likely to be more favorable — for instance, Jeff Flake will no longer be around. What this means practically is that centrist Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have less power to delay nominations, and there's less reason to accommodate them with "compromise" nominees.
With Democrats now in control of the House, there's no hope of repealing Obamacare, making tax cuts permanent, or any other legislative ambitions. As the early phases of the 2020 election start to play out, Republicans will not be able to accomplish anything substantial, so it's best to stay focused on the one area where they can make a significant impact, and that's the composition of the judiciary.
Trump is facing the likelihood of going into re-election without having fulfilled his central campaign pledge to build a border wall. He also hasn't delivered on other promises, such as repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something better. Given that the issue of judges was instrumental to how Trump won over skeptical conservatives and was probably a deciding factor in his election, he'll be eager to get as many more judges confirmed as possible.
I object to the notion that a President or other politician should be held accountable for campaign "promises" over which he does not have full control. Providing funds for the border wall is up to Congress. Same for repealing Obamacare. In cases such as this, the most that the public can reasonably expect is for the President to TRY to fulfill his promises. Trump did. And when he failed to persuade Congress, he initiated backup strategies - such as eliminating the Individual Mandate through Executive Order and denying U.S. foreign aide to nations that permitted or even encouraged caravans of illegal aliens to reach our borders. So, Trump has tried . . . even if he was unable to get Congress to fully implement his campaign agenda. I give him a lot of credit for that. Contrast this with, say, George H.W. Bush who campaigned on the "No New Taxes!" pledge but then implemented sweeping new taxes a year after taking office. The man was a liar who DESERVED to lose his reelection bid. I have zero respect for politicians like that.
As of this writing, there are 118 vacancies at the district court level and 12 vacancies at the appellate court level, for a total of 130. Of those, 65 are pending nominations. To put this in context, there are 865 judges on the Supreme Court, U.S Court of Appeals, and U.S. District Courts. If all the current vacancies get filled, then Trump will have appointed roughly a quarter of them.
There are some on "Never Trump" side who are reluctant to cheer on Trump's judicial appointments, given the cloud of the Russia investigation and the daily drama of his presidency. This is a perplexing position for any conservative to take.
Whoever somebody may have supported in the primaries or even the general election, the reality is that there are a lot of judicial vacancies and that Trump is the president. Robert Mueller has not even concluded his investigation yet, so there is no report of his findings to consider. So, if conservative Trump critics are going to have to deal with his Twitter antics no matter what, why shouldn't they at least come away with good judges?
For conservatives who care about gun rights, religious liberty, economic freedom, free speech, protecting the unborn, and a whole host of other issues, the composition of the court in the coming decades will be crucial. As openly socialist ideas gain ground among a new generation of liberals, Democrats will be attempting to push the boundaries of central power to realize their goals. A critical mass of judges on the bench who adhere to the Constitution will be a bulwark against this encroachment on individual liberties. If liberals are to transform America, it should at least require the hard work of winning elections and passing legislation rather than being made possible through a judicial shortcut.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/republicans-should-accelerate-confirmation-of-judges-in-2019
Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months
| 
