Clicky


Email this article Printer friendly page

 For Immediate Release
Jul 12, 2005 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5188


U.S. Senate Defends Judicial Filibusters in Court on Eve of Supreme Court Nomination

Senate Lawyers Claim Court Review of Judicial Filibusters Would Be "Disastrously Intrusive"


(Washington, DC) – As President Bush moves to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Senate lawyers filed a brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit defending the use of the filibuster rule to block judicial confirmations, Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today.  According to the brief, which was filed on July 1 in Judicial Watch’s filibuster lawsuit appeal against the United States Senate, deliberations involving judicial nominees are “quintessentially political questions that are not appropriate subjects for judicial resolution.”  

 

“For the court to engage in the review plaintiff seeks would require an invasive inquiry into internal Senate processes that go to the heart of the Senate’s prerogatives as a House of Congress,” Senate lawyers argued.  “Judicial intrusion into these matters would express a lack of respect for the Senate as a coordinate branch of government.”

 

Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Senate in May 2003 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.).  In its original complaint, Judicial Watch addressed the question of whether or not the judiciary had the authority to review the judicial confirmation process.  “Courts have consistently found that they may hear challenges to Congress’ rulemaking where, as here, other mandates of the Constitution are implicated,” Judicial Watch argued.  “[The] courts have well-established authority to hear suits – any ‘political’ implications notwithstanding – asserting that congressional rules violate constitutional limitations.”

 

“It is the height of hypocrisy for Senate lawyers to claim that judicial review in this case reflects a lack of respect for a co-equal branch of government,” said JW President Tom Fitton.  “A minority of liberal Senators has diminished the role of the Executive branch in the judicial appointment process and caused harm to the judiciary by refusing to allow up-or-down votes on judicial nominees.  The courts not only have a right to adjudicate this case, they have an obligation to do so in defense of the U.S. Constitution.”

 

A full copy of the Senate’s brief, and other court documents related to Judicial Watch’s Senate lawsuit, can be found on Judicial Watch’s Internet site under "our litigation." The Brief for Appellees can be found here.

 

--30--



Top of Page



Group waiting for action on Code Pink digs - Washington Times (October 25, 2007)
Dishwashers for Clinton - Washington Post (October 22, 2007)
Papers? I Don’t See Any Papers. - Newsweek (Oct 29, 2007)
Their Seven Deadly Sins - American Spectator (October 18, 2007)
Accused Law Firm Continues Giving to Democrat - New York Times (October 18, 2007)
Prosecution Rests in California Bribery Trial - The Washington Post (October 18, 2007)
Hillary leads in donor refunds - Washington Times (October 17, 2007)
ARPAIO TARGETS DAY LABORER COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF PHOENIX - Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (October 15, 2007)
The Convict and the Congressman - Conde Nast (November 2007)
White House Denies Delaying Release of Clinton Records - New York Sun (October 12, 2007)
Effort to Curb Illegal Workers' Hiring Blocked - Washington Post (October 11, 2007)
He’s back: Sandy Berger now advising Hillary Clinton - Examiner.com (October 8, 2007)
Illegal immigrants are issued ID cards in some places - USA Today (October 4, 2007)
Former Presidents Can't Withhold Records - Washington Post (October 2, 2007)
Hsu raised big money for Clinton supporters - The Boston Globe (September 26, 2007)