Judicial Nominations

by Samantha Berkovits

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has filed a cloture motion to force a vote on the nomination of Michael A. Shipp to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey. Reid filed the motion after Sen. Rand. Paul (R-Ky.) refused to consent to a vote on Shipp -- a political move to push for a vote on wholly unrelated legislation to halt aid to Pakistan, according to Roll Call.  The cloture vote is scheduled for July 23.

Another nominee to the District of New Jersey, Kevin McNulty, was confirmed by the Senate this week by an overwhelming majority of 91-3. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) took the opportunity to give a floor speech venting frustrations about the obstruction that has interfered with filling the unprecedented number of vacancies remaining on the federal bench.

Four nominees to district court vacancies in California, Pennsylvania and New York were reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Two would replace judges who were recently confirmed to seats on appeals courts.

By Glenn Sugameli, Staff Attorney, Defenders of Wildlife's Judging the Environment. (Sugameli founded in 2001 and still heads the environmental community's Judging the Environment project and website on federal judicial nominations and related issues.)

 As the Austin American-Statesman’s editorial board commented in "Greenhouse gas ruling timely, right":

Overshadowed last week by U.S. Supreme Court rulings on health care and immigration, but just as significant in its own right, was the unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., affirming federal regulations of greenhouse gases. The three judges — one a Ronald Reagan appointee … said the Environmental Protection Agency was "unambiguously correct" to set rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, given global warming's potential harm to the public's health.

The Salt Lake Tribune’s editorial, "Another health case; Appeals court rightly stands by EPA," agreed: "While most of the country was waiting for a court ruling that would affect how many Americans insure their health care, another court was handing down an order that will go a long way to ensure the health of the entire planet."

This importance of the issues in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. Environmental Protection Agency is augmented by synergistic factors. These include: (1) the court that decided them; (2) the judges who joined the unsigned per curiam opinion; (3) the high likelihood that their ruling is the final judicial word; (4) the very strong language the judges used; and (5) the decision’s impact in confirming the scientific facts of climate change.