Maybe the political stars will be aligned sufficient for a Federal Judgeship Bill

Safiel · 2019-12-25T21:38:21.640Z

Good time for this thread, since the 2nd Session of Congress will open in a few days and this needs to be high on the agenda.

The Congress has not passed a comprehensive federal judgeship bill since 1990 and has not created any new judgeships at all since 2002. We have actually lost 3 judgeships since 2003, due to Congress permitting temporary judgeships to lapse.

The United States Judicial Conference, in its most recent recommendations from March 2019, recommended the creation of 70 new Judgeships and the conversion of 8 of the 10 current temporary Judgeships to permanent.

There are currently 870 authorized Article III Judgeships and this bill would increase that to 940.

This is a good moment for a Judgeship bill. We are currently facing BOTH a competitive Presidential election and a Senate election in which the future majority will be highly contested.

Good chance we could have an R President/R Senate, R/D, D/D or D/R. By passing a Judgeship bill NOW, that does not take effect until January 20, 2021, both parties would be rolling the dice, not knowing whether they or their opponents will be filling the new seats. This eliminates any concerns of court packing, since the public will know going into the election that their votes will also substantially effect the future of the courts.

My proposed bill is below.

It does the following:

Creates all 70 of the requested Judgeships.
The Judicial Conference requested 8 of the 10 current temporary Judgeships be made permanent. My proposed legislation makes all 10 permanent. (The two temporary Judgeships they didn’t request were the Northern District of Alabama and the District of Hawaii.)
It eliminates the last four obsolete multi-district Judgeships, 1 in Kentucky, 2 in Missouri and 1 in Oklahoma, assigning each of those Judgeships to serve a single district only.
The new Judgeships do not become effective until noon on January 20, 2021, meaning that the President elected in 2020 will be solely responsible for appointing those new Judgeships. Could be Trump, Pence, Sanders, Clinton, Harris, etc., etc., etc. Additionally, control of the Senate will be in realistic jeopardy in the 2020 elections. This provision is intended to alleviate any concerns of court packing. Assuming, of course, that this bill was passed PRIOR to the November General Election. Both parties would essentially agree, in passing this bill, to roll the dice as to whether they or their opponents would be appointing the new Judges.
Finally, it authorizes all necessary appropriations required for the new Judgeships, though the actual appropriations would be done separately under the normal appropriations process.

A Bill

To provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit and district judges, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This act may be cited as the “Federal Judgeship Act of 2020”.

SEC. 102. CIRCUIT JUDGES FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

(1) 5 additional circuit judges for the ninth circuit court of appeals.

(b) TABLES.—In order that the table contained in section 44(a) of title 28, United States Code, will, with respect to each judicial circuit, reflect the changes in the total number of permanent circuit judgeships authorized as a result of subsection (a) of this section, such table is amended to read as follows:

(Table deleted for brevity)

(1) 3 in California;

(2) 1 in Arizona;

(3) 1 in Idaho.

(d) This section shall take effect at noon Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2021.

SEC. 103 DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

(1) 4 additional district judges for the district of Arizona;

(2) 9 additional district judges for the central district of California;

(3) 5 additional district judges for the eastern district of California;

(4) 4 additional district judges for the northern district of California;

(5) 4 additional district judges for the southern district of California;

(6) 2 additional district judges for the district of Colorado;

(7) 1 additional district judge for the district of Delaware;

(8) 6 additional district judges for the middle district of Florida;

(9) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Florida;

(10) 3 additional district judges for the southern district of Florida;

(11) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Georgia;

(12) 1 additional district judge for the district of Idaho;

(13) 2 additional district judges for the southern district of Indiana;

(14) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Iowa;

(15) 1 additional district judge for the district of Nevada;

(16) 4 additional district judges for the district of New Jersey;

(17) 1 additional district judge for the district of New Mexico;

(18) 2 additional district judges for the eastern district of New York;

(19) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of New York;

(20) 1 additional district judge for the western district of New York;

(21) 1 additional district judge for the district of Puerto Rico;

(22) 2 additional district judges for the eastern district of Texas;

(23) 2 additional district judges for the southern district of Texas;

(24) 6 additional district judges for the western district of Texas.

(b) EXISTING JUDGESHIPS.—(1) The existing district judgeships for the northern district of Alabama, the district of Arizona, the central district of California, the southern district of Florida, the district of Hawaii, the district of Kansas, the eastern district of Missouri, the district of New Mexico, the western district of North Carolina and the eastern district of Texas authorized by Public Law 115-31 and 128 Stat. 2351 shall be, as of the effective date of this section, authorized under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, and the incumbents in those offices shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this section.

(2)(A) The existing district judgeship for the eastern and western districts of Kentucky (provided by section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this act) shall be a district judgeship for the eastern district of Kentucky only, and the incumbent of such judgeship shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this section.

(B) The existing district judgeship for the eastern and western districts of Missouri (provided by section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this act) and the occupant of which has his or her official duty station at St. Louis on the date of the enactment of this act, shall be a district judgeship for the eastern district of Missouri only, and the incumbent of such judgeship shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this section.

© The existing district judgeship for the eastern and western districts of Missouri (provided by section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this act) and the occupant of which has his or her official duty station at Kansas City on the date of the enactment of this act, shall be a district judgeship for the western district of Missouri only, and the incumbent of such judgeship shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this section.

(D) The existing district judgeship for the northern, eastern, and western districts of Oklahoma (provided by section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this act) shall be a district judgeship for the eastern district of Oklahoma only, and the incumbent of such judgeship shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this section.

© TABLES.—In order that the table contained in section 133 of title 28, United States Code, will, with respect to each judicial district, reflect the changes in the total number of permanent district judgeships authorized as a result of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, such table is amended to read as follows:

(Table deleted for brevity)

(d) This section shall take effect at noon Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2021. The temporary judgeships referenced by subsection (b) of this section shall be, any other provision of law notwithstanding, authorized and extended until noon Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2021, when they shall be converted to permanent judgeships per subsection (b) of this section.

SEC. 104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act, including such sums as may be necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for the judicial positions created by this act.

Safiel · 2019-12-25T21:49:07.346Z

For comparison, the number of Judgeships added by historical major judgeship bills and the cluster of Judgeship bills from 1999 to 2003:

1960 - 82
1966 - 51
1970 - 58
1978 - 152
1984 - 85
1990 - 85
1999 - 9
2000 - 10
2003 - 15

2020 - 70???

WuWei · 2019-12-25T22:40:53.629Z

No.
…

Safiel · 2019-12-25T23:12:31.977Z

WuWei:

No.
…

Yes…

highroller · 2019-12-26T00:24:03.942Z

This is a desperate need to expand the judiciary from what I have gathered in other threads (judges working 6 12 hour days a week), but the behavior on the Republican side would kill any bill that expanded the judgeships since they have worked so hard the last 20 years to politicize and capture control of the judicial branch.

So no dice I’m afraid…

WildRose · 2019-12-26T00:34:50.045Z

I seriously doubt that is going to happen. Democrats understand that the biggest impediment to their agenda long term is getting more originalists on the federal bench.

I would expect them to hold off on creating any new judgeships much less splitting the 9th into two new districts until they have a democrat in the WH.

If Trump wins reelection and republicans maintain control in the senate and retake the house I would expect this to be a priority for 2021.

highroller · 2019-12-26T00:35:26.464Z

^ Exhibit A

WildRose · 2019-12-26T00:39:35.877Z

Democrats wove judicial activists into the courts for over fifty years to further their agenda through litigation. Returning control of the courts to strict constructionists and constitutionalists is simply returning the balance required for true justice.

Safiel · 2019-12-26T00:46:11.930Z

I don’t trust partisan’s of either stripe. Both have obstructed. Both have placed unworthy hacks on the Courts of Appeals. H. Lee Sarokin and Cornelia Pillard are two hacks from the left, Pillard being described as Reinhardt in a skirt. There are a couple of Republican appointed hacks as well.

I don’t think EITHER party has the courage to pass a Judgeship bill NOW, when they should, and wait on the judgement of the American people as to who will fill those judgeships starting on January 20, 2021.

WildRose · 2019-12-26T00:54:55.092Z

Waiting would make no sense. If there is an actual critical need it should be addressed as soon as possible.

Even once all the new judges are appointed it will likely be a year or more before they all have court facilities to support the additional workload.

Safiel · 2019-12-26T01:09:10.302Z

WildRose:

Waiting would make no sense. If there is an actual critical need it should be addressed as soon as possible.

Even once all the new judges are appointed it will likely be a year or more before they all have court facilities to support the additional workload.

The Democratic controlled House of Representatives wouldn’t be ******* stupid enough to blindly hand Trump 70 free judgeships.

The only way a judgeship bill will pass is if all the judgeships are postdated to January 20, 2021 and filled by the President that will be elected in November, Republican or Democrat.

WildRose · 2019-12-26T01:15:50.737Z

You’re making my point.

WuWei · 2019-12-26T02:33:00.597Z

Safiel:

WuWei:

No.
…

Yes…

Only if they make common sense a requirement for the position and they have to pinky swear to follow the letter of the Constitution.

WuWei · 2019-12-26T02:33:43.784Z

highroller:

This is a desperate need to expand the judiciary from what I have gathered in other threads (judges working 6 12 hour days a week), but the behavior on the Republican side would kill any bill that expanded the judgeships since they have worked so hard the last 20 years to politicize and capture control of the judicial branch.

So no dice I’m afraid…

You just can’t help it, can you?

Safiel · 2019-12-26T05:47:49.404Z

WildRose:

You’re making my point.

In light of the fact that Trump will likely finish the current Presidential term with at least 240 judicial confirmations, throwing 70 new Judgeships into the mix would ring up a potential single term total of 310, almost as many as G.W. Bush and Obama each appointed in TWO terms. Politically it is a non-starter and rightfully would be seen as court packing.

The only RIGHT option is to postpone the judgeships to the start of the NEXT Presidential term and let the American people decide who they want to fill them.

And it is the ONLY way that a Judgeship bill will pass.

While I would like the judgeships sooner, anti-court packing interests require that they wait until 2021.

markdido · 2019-12-26T06:14:11.058Z

Safiel:

WildRose:

You’re making my point.

In light of the fact that Trump will likely finish the current Presidential term with at least 240 judicial confirmations, throwing 70 new Judgeships into the mix would ring up a potential single term total of 310, almost as many as G.W. Bush and Obama each appointed in TWO terms. Politically it is a non-starter and rightfully would be seen as court packing.

The only RIGHT option is to postpone the judgeships to the start of the NEXT Presidential term and let the American people decide who they want to fill them.

And it is the ONLY way that a Judgeship bill will pass.

While I would like the judgeships sooner, anti-court packing interests require that they wait until 2021.

And do you think that if Dems win the Presidency, they will not stack the court?

DougBH · 2019-12-26T06:23:12.902Z

Why would Democrats do this (assuming the actual need for judgeships is the least of their concerns)? They likely believe that their chances of keeping the House are better than their chances of taking the Senate and the Presidency. That being so, they would naturally not vote for this until after the election. Then if they take the House, Senate and Presidency they will of course vote for it. If they don’t take the Senate or the Presidency, no way.
The only way they could win voting for it now is to take all three. Odds say to them wait and see. They sure don’t want a second term President Trump and a Republican Senate with 70 new judgeships to fill.
Heck, they don’t even want them marrying people.

WuWei · 2019-12-26T15:10:53.957Z

Safiel:

and rightfully would be seen as court packing.

No. That’s not court packing.

Safiel · 2019-12-26T15:44:14.282Z

markdido:

Safiel:

WildRose:

You’re making my point.

In light of the fact that Trump will likely finish the current Presidential term with at least 240 judicial confirmations, throwing 70 new Judgeships into the mix would ring up a potential single term total of 310, almost as many as G.W. Bush and Obama each appointed in TWO terms. Politically it is a non-starter and rightfully would be seen as court packing.

The only RIGHT option is to postpone the judgeships to the start of the NEXT Presidential term and let the American people decide who they want to fill them.

And it is the ONLY way that a Judgeship bill will pass.

While I would like the judgeships sooner, anti-court packing interests require that they wait until 2021.

And do you think that if Dems win the Presidency, they will not stack the court?

I have no doubt that if Trump wins he will continue with his zealous appointment regime.

I also have no doubt that if a Democrat wins, that Democrat will conduct a zealous appointment regime of his or her own.

The point of all this is to create the judgeships before the election so the American people can decide who they want making all these appointments.

Turning to another angle.

Right now, there are about 96 current and future vacancies that Trump could conceivably fill prior to the end of his first term. However, even with the new expedited Senate procedures, filling even that many would be quite a stretch. Most likely he would not have time to fill the new vacancies even if they were made effective now.

There really is very little reason why the judgeships should not be postdated until January 20, 2021.

WuWei · 2019-12-26T15:46:36.034Z

Safiel:

I have no doubt that if Trump wins he will continue with his zealous appointment regime.

You’ve been complaining for years about vacancies and now he’s a zealot? He’s giving you what you demanded.

Safiel:

There really is very little reason why the judgeships should not be postdated until January 20, 2021.

Except that it’s a crisis now!