"The goal of this lawsuit is to put an end to the subversion of the Constitution by both political parties when it comes to nominating and confirming judges," said JW Chairman Larry Klayman. "Too many people must wait far too long in order to receive justice due to the number of judicial vacancies and overloaded dockets. And justice delayed is justice denied."

The law is clear with respect to the Senate’s role in the judicial nomination process. Article II of the Constitution provides: The President "shall nominate, and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…"

In other words, the President nominates candidates and then the Senate votes up or down in a timely fashion, based solely upon whether or not the candidate is qualified. Liberal Democrats are now misusing Senate rules by refusing to end the debate phase of the confirmation process and allow a vote a process known as filibustering. Given that it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, Senate Democrats have essentially rewritten the Constitution, requiring 60 votes for confirmation, rather than the 51 provided for by our nation’s founders.

"A minority of Senators are using procedural tactics to prevent the Senate majority from expressing its will. This attempt to ‘play politics’ with judicial nominations causes serious harm to the American people. It is intolerable and unconstitutional and it must be stopped," continued Klayman.

The two nominations that are being filibustered are Miguel Estrada, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, picked for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Both have reputations as principled conservatives and have received unanimous "well qualified" ratings by the liberal American Bar Association.

Yet despite the fact that the judicial vacancies for which they have been nominated have been vacant since 1999 and 1997 respectively, Senate Democrats have failed to provide for a vote because they are philosophically opposed to the candidates’ conservative records. Historically, the Senate considers the candidate’s qualifications, not judicial philosophy, in determining whether candidates are fit to serve on the bench.