(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today that U.S. Senate lawyers have requested a 30-day extension from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against the U.S. Senate in order to conclude the current debate over the nomination of Judge Priscilla Owens.  Senate lawyers argue the constitutionality of the filibuster rule as applied to judicial nominees -- which is the central issue of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit -- will likely be decided upon this week as the U.S. Senate considers the Owen nomination.

“The outcome of the current debate in the Senate is…likely to affect substantially the adjudication of [Judicial Watch’s] claims in this Court,” Senate lawyers argued in their motion for an extension.  “As the very matters at the heart of this suit are in flux in light of the current debate on the Senate floor…the interests of judicial economy would be served by extending the time for [defendants] to file their brief until after the Senate’s present debate on these issues is likely to be concluded.”

Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit in May 2003 against the U.S. Senate in order to have the court declare unconstitutional the use of filibusters to block judicial confirmations, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. The United States Senate, et. al. (Civil Action 03-1066, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.).  While this is the same objective professed by Senate Majority Leader Frist, the Senator and fellow Republicans have joined with Democrats to ask the court to protect the use of judicial filibusters.  The Senate’s defense in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit was reportedly agreed upon by both Republican and Democrat leaders, including Senator Frist.

“Senator Frist has said he will do what it takes to end the unconstitutional judicial filibusters,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  Why, then, is he allowing Senate lawyers to oppose a lawsuit that would accomplish this objective in court?  With this motion, the Senate admits Judicial Watch’s lawsuit would resolve the debate about the constitutionality of judicial filibusters.”

Senator Frist has threatened to invoke a seldom-used parliamentary maneuver to stop the judicial filibusters.  If he fails, as this latest court filing shows, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit would represent the only tool left to stop the unconstitutional application of the filibuster rule to judicial nominees.

A copy of the United States Senate’s motion for an extension can be found on Judicial Watch’s Internet site, www.judicialwatch.org.