May 25, 2005
Private: Schwartz on Why Judicial Nominations Matter
Writing in the Baltimore Sun last week, Professor Herman Schwartz of American University's Washington College of Law made the case for why Senators and the public should pay close attention to judicial nominations:
Today, because federal legislation and regulation affect every facet of our daily lives, decisions by federal judges touch everything we use and do, from the air we breathe to the safety of the drugs we take. To enforce these decisions, the judiciary depends on the public's confidence that the judges are deciding these cases objectively and impartially, free from any outside influences. And to ensure that these decisions are made with complete independence, the Constitution has not only required joint action by the president and the Senate, but it has also given federal judges the right "to hold their offices during good behavior," which means only so long as they avoid conviction for a serious crime.
They normally hold on to their authority until they choose to leave, become incapacitated or die.
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas served 36 years; if he retires this year, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will have served 33 years. In recent years, the average length of a judge's tenure has been about 24 years and may be getting longer. With today's medical advances, judges appointed in their 30s can serve 40 to 50 years. Leading isolated, secure and privileged lives, these powerful public officials lose touch with the problems of ordinary people. Arrogance becomes an occupational disease.
During these long years, such powerful government officials are accountable for their decisions to no one but their consciences. If senators made mistakes or misjudgments or if new information appears, nothing can undo a judicial confirmation so long as a judge maintains "good behavior."