Professor Michael Gerhardt

  • December 14, 2011

    by Jonathan Arogeti

    Adding to a growing bipartisan chorus to break the obstructionist impasse over judicial nominations in Congress, two more former government officials from the two sides of the political aisle are urging reform.

    In a Tuesday op-ed for Politico, former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) notes that individual senators are holding presidential nominations “hostage,” trying to “win concession … or just to score political points.” And on the same day in an op-ed for The Hill, Bill Galston, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, notes that “an explosive uptick in ideologically driven filibusters” is “freez[ing]” congressional action.

    No Labels, a group Davis and Galston helped co-found, is unveiling a 12-point plan with one simple goal: to make Congress work. Part of the plan includes a proposal to require up-or-down votes on presidential appointments. They recommend, “[A]ll presidential nominations should be confirmed or rejected within 90 days of the nomination being received by the Senate. This time frame includes both committee and floor action. If a nominee's name is not confirmed or rejected within 90 days, the nominee would be confirmed by default.” A second proposal would fix the filibuster by requiring filibusters à la Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and end the filibuster on motions to proceed.

    Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, says the Senate should feel “shame” for using delaying tactics in just the last week to halt the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the judiciary, Richard Cordray to a consumer bureau and  Mari Carmen Aponte to an ambassadorship. These tactics notably doomed the judicial nominations of Miguel Estrada, one of President George W. Bush’s nominees, and Goodwin Liu, another judicial nominee of President Obama.

    Michael Gerhardt, a former Clinton-era official and now a law professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and Richard Painter, a former Bush-era official and now a law professor at the University of Minnesota, published an ACS Issue Brief that proposes judicial nominations reform.

  • December 2, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing his colleagues to stop blocking the nomination of Caitlin Halligan, who has earned the American Bar Association's highest possible rating, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

    The Senate, as The Blog of Legal Times reports, is set to vote Dec. 6 on whether to allow an up-or-down vote on the nomination, which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved in March.

    Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, noting the vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court, said Republicans should stop holding up the nomination.

    “Republicans’ shifting standards with respect to judicial nominations have required cloture motions to be filed on some nominations that ultimately won unanimous support from the Senate,” Leahy said in a statement. “Those shifting standards even required cloture to be filed on a district court nomination earlier this year. It would set yet another new standard if a nominee this well-qualified is prevented from even having an up-or-down vote, and one that could not be met by judicial nominees of the Presidents of either party.”

    Despite strong bipartisan support – Halligan’s nomination is backed by appellate advocates such as Miguel Estrada, who served in the George W. Bush Administration, and Carter Phillips, who served in the Reagan administration – gun rights groups have rallied against the nomination.

    The nomination, moreover, is supported by top law enforcement officials, such as New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and former New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. (Halligan served as the state’s solicitor general for nearly six years.)

    Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, in a post for the organization’s blog, noted that confirming Halligan’s nomination would not only fill one of the three vacancies on the federal appeals court, but would also “increase the diversity on this court by adding only the sixth female judge in this court’s 118-year history.”

  • November 2, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    With more than 80 vacancies on the federal bench and courts’ workloads piling up, it is far past time for the U.S. Senate to overcome the rancor surrounding judicial nominations and start confirming judges, two law professors, who have been intimately involved with the federal judicial nominations process, write in a new ACS Issue Brief.  

    In their Issue Brief, UNC School of Law Professor Michael Gerhardt and University of Minnesota Law School Professor Richard Painter write that an effort hatched in 2005 by the so-called “Gang of 14” senators to help avert a crisis over judicial nominations has failed to foster continued cooperation on confirming judges, which in turn has resulted in a high vacancy rate on the federal bench. The professors argue that the plan, which centered on a promise not to filibuster judicial selections “unless there were ‘extraordinary circumstances,’” has not held up well.

    Gerhardt, who helped craft policy for the Clinton administration on the judicial nominations process, and Painter, who served as President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer, explore the origins of the Gang of 14’s agreement on judicial nominations, but call on senators to reach a new accord on ending the ongoing delays of judicial nominations, which have resulted in a sustained high vacancy rate on the federal bench.

    The authors note that Senate leaders, “particularly Republican Members, have long called for reform of the process for confirmation of judicial nominees and an end to the filibuster.” The two cite a 2005 law review article by Texas Sen. John Cornyn who wrote, “It is time to end the blame game, fix the problem, and move on. Wasteful and unnecessary delay in the process of selecting judges hurts our justice system and harms all Americans. It is intolerable no matter who occupies the White House and no matter which party is the majority party in the Senate. Unnecessary delay has for too long plagued the Senate’s judicial confirmation process. And filibusters are by far the most virulent form of delay imaginable.”

  • February 4, 2010

    Following his participation in an ACS forum on the first year of President Obama's judicial nominations, constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt talked with ACSblog about the challenges the administration faces in the coming year. In an election year, Gerhardt, the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor in Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, said we should expect "more friction, rather than less," over the president's judicial nominations. Watch the entire interview below or download it as a video podcast here. Video of the entire ACS event, "Judicial Nominations in the First Year of the Obama Administration" is available here.