What is the procedure for the selection of federal judges?
|
Federal judges in the United States are selected through a variety of methods. Some of these methods are more effective than others in assuring public confidence in the integrity and quality of our courts. Through empirical analysis and recommendations, thought leadership, and substantive support, IAALS works to identify and promote models for choosing federal judges that emphasize qualifications and experience, limit political considerations and special interest influence, and provide transparency. According to Article II of the United States Constitution, the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint” most federal
judges. In processes for selecting some of these federal judges, an additional component may be in place—one that resembles the judicial nominating commissions used in 33 states and the District of Columbia to choose state judges. IAALS has conducted research on three such components: Click here for information about Federal Judicial Screening Committees in place as of August 2017. In 2013, IAALS sponsored “An Uncommon Dialogue” about judicial selection and convened a group of thirty legal experts for two days to share perspectives on essential attributes for judges and how to put judges with those attributes on the bench. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies and The Aspen Institute Justice & Society Program facilitated the participation of a number of those experts. The group was ideologically and experientially diverse, including judges from both the state and federal systems, academics who study judicial selection, practicing lawyers (including a former governor) who have had or who currently have roles in selecting judges at the state or federal level, and representatives of various organizations with an interest in these issues. Read more in An Uncommon Dialogue: What Do We Want in Our Judges & How Do We Get There? Project Team:The Senate Judiciary Committee reviews the president's nominees to the federal bench before they are confirmed on the Senate floor. The committee holds its meetings in rooms such as this one, Committee Room 226 in the Senate Dirksen Office Building. Legendary Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that a Supreme Court Justice should be a "combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall." Why are venerable former justices sources of guidance in understanding necessary qualities for federal judges? The Constitution is silent on judicial qualifications. It meticulously outlines qualifications for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency, but it does not give any advice for judicial appointments other than stating that justices should exhibit "good behavior." As a result, selections are governed primarily by tradition. The Nomination ProcessThe Constitution provides broad parameters for the judicial nomination process. It gives the responsibility for nominating federal judges and justices to the president. It also requires nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. First, look at the numbers. More than 600 judges sit on district courts, almost 200 judges sit on courts of appeals, and 9 justices make up the Supreme Court. Because all federal judges have life terms, no single president will make all of these appointments. But many vacancies do occur during a president's term of office. Appointing judges, then, could be a full-time job. A president relies on many sources to recommend appropriate nominees for judicial posts. Recommendations often come from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, members of Congress, sitting judges and justices, and the American Bar Association. Some judicial hopefuls even nominate themselves. A special, very powerful tradition for recommending district judges is called senatorial courtesy. According to this practice, the senators from the state in which the vacancy occurs actually make the decision. A senator of the same political party as the President sends a nomination to the president, who almost always follows the recommendation. To ignore it would be a great affront to the senator, as well as an invitation for conflict between the president and the Senate.
Selection Criteria Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated to fill the position vacated by Thurgood Marshall. He served on the U.S. Court of Appeals before his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush. Presidents must consider many factors in making their choices for federal judgeships:
Because federal judges and Supreme Court justices serve for life, a president's nomination decisions are in many ways his or her most important legacy. Many of these appointments will serve long after a president's term of office ends. Whether or not the results are a "combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall," these choices can have an impact on generations to come. |
