It has been common knowledge around the federal courthouse in Denver that two of its district judges planned on stepping down from active duty this year.
To nudge the replacement process into motion, the court last April told President Bush and Colorado’s U.S. Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar about the imminent openings.
This month, the number of vacancies went to three, with the death of Judge Phillip S. Figa, who had been battling brain cancer since last year.
Replacements for these important jobs should be in line for confirmation. But unfortunately, a skirmish between the state’s Republican and Democratic senators has bogged down what could have been a thoughtful, bipartisan selection process.
Given that Colorado’s U.S. District Court has just seven full-time, active slots, a loss of three of those jurists will be a significant reduction.
The process of choosing federal judges is cumbersome and has become notoriously divisive in recent years. The president sends nominees to the U.S. Senate so that body can fulfill its constitutional “advice and consent” role.
With a Republican in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, collaboration is needed for anything to get done. Throw into the mix an election year, and a potential change in party control of the presidency, and it gets really messy.
Last week, Allard and Salazar very publicly butted heads on the judicial selection process.
On Thursday, Salazar announced a bipartisan committee of seven prominent Coloradans to vet candidates to send to the White House by March 15.
He told the Denver Post editorial board that he was rebuffed by Allard two months ago when he proposed the committee. While we think the structure Salazar has proposed is a good one and may be a template for the future, there are legitimate questions about whether the committee can complete its work quickly enough.
Also on Thursday, Allard distributed a news release saying he already sent names of judicial candidates to the White House back in November and the process of filling the slots held by U.S. District judges Lewis Babcock and Walker Miller was well on its way. Those judges will step down from active duty in less than three months.
The president clearly has the power to choose judicial nominees. But the political reality is that a Senate controlled by the Democrats must be included in the process if anyone is serious about getting these judgeships filled anytime soon.
If they aren’t filled by summer, the process likely will shut down for congressional recesses, political conventions and the election.
And after November, a new administration will be in power. Whether it is Republican or Democratic, it will take some time to get its judicial nominating machinery in place.
In the meantime, cases will pile up.
Chief Judge Edward Nottingham said Friday he is distressed by potentially big increases in judicial workloads that could cause a backlog in the federal trial court system.
While visiting judges and senior judges — those who step down from active duty and carry anywhere from no cases to a full load — could offset some of those increases, they won’t solve the problem, Nottingham said.
In the coming weeks, there needs to be collaboration in choosing and supporting appropriate candidates for these judgeships. The consensus choices ought to be moderates with relevant legal experience and an absence of strong ideological bent.
These lifetime appointments are prestigious plums, to be sure, but they are also critical to the efficient operation of the federal trial courts.
There still is time to make wise judicial selections in a bipartisan fashion, but there is no more time for political posturing.
