Bush Urges Judicial Process Changes

WASHINGTON —  Frustrated by Senate delays in considering his federal court nominees, President Bush on Wednesday proposed overhauling the judicial nomination process, setting specific deadlines for the Senate to act on each candidate.

The proposal, which would make the first such changes in the nomination process since Jimmy Carter was president, would require the cooperation of both the Senate and the federal judges who plan to retire.

The timing of the announcement -- six days before the congressional elections -- and the limited consultation that the White House conducted with the Senate left critics saying that it was a politically motivated measure rather than one likely to have a lasting effect.

Under Bush’s plan, judges on U.S. district and appeals courts would be asked to notify the White House of their retirement date one year in advance. By custom, the judges, who have lifetime appointments, generally provide a six-month notification.

The president would submit a nomination within 180 days after learning of a vacancy. The Senate Judiciary Committee would have 90 days to conduct a hearing on the nominee, and the Senate would vote on the nomination within 180 days after its submission.

Calling his plan “a clean start” to a process that has become mired in politics and acrimony, Bush said: “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.”

The proposal follows a series of measures offered by the White House in the closing days of the political campaign dealing with such concerns as pension reform, embryo research and prescription drugs for the elderly -- issues that hold special appeal to either the president’s conservative supporters or other constituent groups.

Some of the sharpest criticisms of the judicial proposal came from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. He and the White House have been tangling for months over the pace of Senate work on court nominees.

“The White House repeatedly has chosen to continue down its path of trying to politicize the process,” Leahy said. “The timing and handling of this unilateral White House proposal, a week before the elections, and after ignoring all previous invitations to consult with the Senate, cannot help but raise questions about its purpose.”

However, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the timing of the proposal only supported his contention that politics had not come into play.

“The fact that it was announced this week underscores the nonpolitical nature of it,” he said. “If it was a political announcement, you would think the White House would have withheld it until after the elections, to see who won.”

The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, offered terse praise. An aide said, “We support it,” adding that Hatch would have no other comment.

In campaign appearances in recent weeks, Bush has taken to chastising the Senate, where Democrats hold a one-seat majority, over what he has called a vacancy “crisis” because seats on federal district and appeals courts are unfilled.

Of the 849 authorized federal judgeships, the White House said, 79 are vacant.

But there is sharp disagreement over where the responsibility for the vacancies lies. The president argues that the Democrats are applying inappropriate ideological standards to his nominees, and Democrats contend that they are moving faster than the Republican-led Senate did on President Clinton’s nominations.

On Wednesday, Bush said: “We will not find a solution in an endless cycle of blame and bitterness.”

He complained that the Senate had voted on only three of the first 11 nominees he submitted for positions in the appeals courts. The nominations were announced May 9, 2001.

Leahy responded that the Judiciary Committee has voted on 100 nominees for various courts, approving 98 of them, in the 15 months since Democrats have been in the majority.

“We have done more in 15 months than our predecessors did in 30 months,” he said.

But there is agreement within the legal community that the process could move faster and, said Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, “both parties share equally” in the blame for the delays.

“If they want real reform, it requires both parties to acknowledge they have sinned and to make a truly bipartisan effort to reform the process,” said Goldman, author of a study of the way federal judges have been chosen since the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The American Bar Assn. offered a qualified endorsement of Bush’s proposal.

Alfred P. Carlton Jr., the organization’s president, said in an interview that the White House deserved “an A for effort,” but that the Senate’s handling of judicial nominees is now “moving along.” He said he needed time to consider the specifics of the proposal.

The proposal represents the first White House effort to speed up the process since Carter created a nominating commission for the federal bench. That process was dismantled by President Reagan.