Sen. Leahy

  • September 15, 2011
    Guest Post

    This post is part of an ACSblog Constitution Week Symposium. By Doug Kendall, President, and Judith Schaeffer, Vice President, Constitutional Accountability Center  


    As ACS members know, our Constitution is under attack from tea partiers and other self-professed “constitutional conservatives” who have claimed the document as their own and distorted it to support their ideological agenda. Over the past two years, they have made increasingly extreme, and in some cases absurd, claims about our Nation’s charter. They started with calls to repeal a number of Amendments, including the part of the 14th Amendment that protects citizenship at birth. They progressed to claims that Social Security, Medicare, and portions of the Affordable Care Act are unconstitutional. It’s gotten to the point where it seems that many in the tea party believe the entire 20th Century was unconstitutional. Talk about a bridge to the 21st Century!  The tea party movement seems to want to build a bridge back to the colonial era and the Articles of Confederation.

    There is no greater threat to progressive values than this effort to make progress itself unconstitutional. This week, Constitutional Accountability Center and our partner organizations, including the Center for American Progress and People For the American Way Foundation, launched a coordinated effort  -- Constitutional Progressives -- to take our Constitution back and rebut the constitutional fairy tales being peddled by tea party leaders. Our greatest assets in doing so are the text and history of the Constitution itself.

    Constitutional Progressives celebratethe Framers for creating the best and most durable form of government in world history, but believe the Constitution today is better than the document ratified in 1789.  Generations of Americans have made our country and our Constitution “more perfect” by ratifying Amendments that have eliminated slavery, protected liberty and equality, expanded the powers of the federal government, and secured voting rights for every adult citizen in America.   

    This story of constitutional improvement should inspire all Americans, and we’re asking people across the political spectrum to join Constitutional Progressives by signing the “Whole Constitution Pledge” --  a pledge to support the entire Constitution, including the Amendments adopted over the last 220 years. The Pledge can be signed on line, here. More than 15,000 people across the country have already signed. We’ve made a similar call to all Members of Congress, urging them on Constitution Day to reaffirm their constitutional oath of office -- their pledge to support the whole Constitution, not just the parts they like or find ideologically convenient.

  • December 10, 2009

    The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance three of President Obama's judicial nominations. The Committee approved the judicial nominations of Judge Denny Chin (left) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Rosanna Malouf Peterson to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and William M. Conley to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The nominations await confirmation by the full Senate.

    Earlier in the week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy urged the Senate to confirm dozens of judicial and executive branch nominations being held up by Republicans. Leahy noted that nine nominations for federal courts and several nominations for critical leadership positions in the Department of Justice await Senate confirmation. "This year we have witnessed unprecedented delays in the consideration of qualified and noncontroversial nominations," Leahy said in a statement. "We have had to waste weeks seeking time agreements in order to consider nominations that were confirmed unanimously. I hope that instead of withholding consent and threatening filibusters of President Obama's judicial nominees, Senate Republicans will treat the nominees of President Obama fairly." 

    [image via Mac Ambo]

  • October 19, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Nan Aron, President, and Jennifer Meinig, Legislative Counsel, Alliance for Justice

    A new bill that would provide much-needed relief for the federal judiciary is caught up in the "say no to everything" approach of Senate Republicans.

    No one disagrees that American courts need more judges. What's different now is that rather than both parties working together to pass legislation to create more seats, Republicans are refusing to support this effort.

    As Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated in a letter to The Wall Street Journal on Oct. 14: "Just as I have sponsored bipartisan bills incorporating the Judicial Conference's recommendations during the past eight years, I have done so again this year. The difference this year is that no Senate Republican is cosponsoring the effort. They have all apparently had a change of heart now that we have a Democratic president."

    Senator Leahy, along with 18 co-sponsors, recently introduced The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 to address the needs of our overburdened judiciary. The legislation would establish 12 new judgeships in six courts of appeals and 51 new judgeships in 25 district courts. The Act mirrors the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States - chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts - which carefully assessed court workloads and other local factors including the number of senior, magistrate, and visiting judges; geographical factors; and case complexity. The Judicial Conference conducts a rigorous six-step process before making a final judgeship recommendation to Congress in its biennial report. The outcome balances the need to control growth with the need to seek vital and important resources appropriate for the judiciary's caseload. 

    A similar bill introduced last year had the backing of a number of Republican Senators, including Sens. Orrin Hatch (R- Utah), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) who voted for its passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Currently, this year's bill only has support from Democratic members. Support from senators on both sides of the aisle will be critical to passage. In 1990, a Democratic Congress and a Republican president came together in bipartisan fashion to address the resource needs of a coequal branch of government.