The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
White House Vetoes Bipartisan Bill to Create Needed Judgeships
It is apparently unacceptable that some of the new judges would be appointed by a Republican.
Yesterday the White House issued a statement by President Biden indicating he is vetoing the JUDGES Act, bipartisan legislation to create additional district court judgeships.
The Senate passed the bill unanimously in August, and a bipartisan House majority followed suit shortly after the election. It would have created 66 new district court seats over the next decade. The bill is based upon the recommendations of the Judicial Conference and was endorsed by the Federal Bar Association and Federal Judges Association. Even Fix the Court liked it, calling the veto threat "weird."
The veto statement reads as follows:
I am returning herewith without my approval S. 4199, the "Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024" or the "JUDGES Act of 2024."
S. 4199 seeks to hastily add judgeships with just a few weeks left in the 118th Congress. The House of Representative's hurried action fails to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the new judgeships are allocated, and neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate explored fully how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships. The efficient and effective administration of justice requires that these questions about need and allocation be further studied and answered before we create permanent judgeships for life-tenured judges.
S. 4199 would create new judgeships in States where Senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies. Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now.
Therefore, I am vetoing this bill.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The past several months of the Biden administration has been a display of policy confusion and unforced errors. I don't understand this move, either. The Republicans may just re-introduce a version of this bill next session, except now without the staggered start dates, to create dozens of new Trump judgeships to fill in the next four years. Watch them torpedo the filibuster to pass it.
I'm not looking forward to Trump's own version of corruption and incompetence, but I'll confess that I tire of Biden's quiet-quitting and leaving the administration to a disorganized rabble of officials who don't seem to know what they're doing.
Just lay back and enjoy the next four years.
It will be enjoyable watching the Republicans implode (you know Trump doesn't care about the party - only Trump).
Plus / minus on # of times the word "RINO" appears in the VC 2025 - 2027?
250,000?
You missed the opportunity to make a substantive reply to Simon.
You are going to find it a long 4 years.
Since whenever you guys lose you always end up eventually claiming its going to be so great for you and so bad for us, why don't you just kick back and enjoy losing all the time? I don't really get the need for the entire rest of the cycle of fumbling and failing and gnashing of teeth.
Don't you listen to Steve Bannon? (OK, why would you? only smart peoples like me spy on the opposition, (OK, watching PMS-NBC, PBS, CNN is also great for the comedy)
"Implosion" is the whole idea, sort of like "Helter Skelter" in reverse.
Bannon even has the "Charlie Don't Surf" Hair (and probably odor) Reminds me of the old Bazooka Joe joke,
"Would you rather be in a Collison or an Explosion?"
Frank
SimonP with a pretty balanced criticism that includes his side (and which makes a pretty good point).
Mr Bumble with nasty gloating.
Why are some people like this?
"Why?" is a hard word to use when asking questions about things we observe. It implies that we want to know the purpose behind something, and not just an explanation of the cause-effect relationships involved in what we observe. How we answer will also require assumptions about what is true and known in order to provide a frame of reference. (See this exchange between Richard Feynman and someone interviewing him)
"Why are some people like this [gloating instead of responding thoughtfully]?" If you're looking to know what purpose Mr. Bumble and others have when they do this, I think that it is likely just cheerleading and celebrating that their side "won". I.e., they "owned the libs". It doesn't signify anything else or serve any rational purpose in advancing their side's policies. Everyone's capable of this, but they won this time, so it is them doing it now. For those people, when they lose, they instead get angry, blame the refs, call the other side cheaters, and so on.
It is no accident that I use sports-fan metaphors here, either, since it is the same psychology.
Criticizing a lame-duck president of your own party in the few weeks before he slides into political oblivion requires unflinching, principled courage.
Bumbler, you seriously misunderstand the perspective I'll have on the Trump years. No one will be fucking me. I (and my clients) will be fucking you.
Lube up, rube.
I can hear Kirkland saying, "excellent, my young padawan, feel the hate flow through you."
LOL. Indeed, it is palpable. Hear the winner in 'im.
I actually hope Republicans nuke the filibuster and pass the bill. That will make it much easier for Democrats to pack the courts once they get in power (including the Supreme Court and appeals courts).
SimonP, the election threw them off (the administration). I don't think the administration ever planned on losing the Congress. So all political favors are now being repaid = what looks like policy confusion and unforced errors.
As for this specific bill, it is all about sticking it to Pres Trump. It's personal.
"it is all about sticking it to Pres Trump"
Yep. It would be an unforced error if it were about legitimate policy. But it's not. It's about the emotional retribution, the blood of Trump, that Democrats seek. SimonP has trouble reconciling the contention between good and evil within himself.
That which he describes as being a bug is actually a feature. Vindictiveness now prevails over Party D.
I don't understand this either. At least with this bill the new judges aren't all appointed by one President, it would make sense to lock that in place rather than risk the next iteration of this effort in the next Congress not having that property.
The Senate passed the bill unanimously in August, and a bipartisan House majority followed suit shortly after the election.
If Congress will meet sometime before January 3, a veto override would be in order.
"a veto override would be in order."
I think that this Congress adjourns sine die so on January 2 that is not possible.
Then Biden will get to nominate so many new judges next term and...whoa whoa whoa let's not be hasty, gents!
How's that Supreme Court packing plan going? [Sounds of a strong breeze rustling through branches on a cold winter night.]
Why wouldn't Fix the Court support the bill?
The Senate passed this bill before the election. That is when the House should have. Not doing so, it looks partisan. Some House Democrats still supported it, especially since many of the new judges will be in blue states. Some didn't.
The opening comment speaks of "display of policy confusion and unforced errors" which as a general matter I have not seen.
I will simply focus on this bill. The true reason is probably the one cited above with the rest somewhat made-up arguments.
There still is a reasonable chance of the bill being passed again in the new session. The Republicans generally support it and Trump picking the judges will relieve concerns. Some Democrats support the measure and for now blue slips are still in place. Dems likely will have some say about the judges in blue states.
The net result is that you are likely going to get all the Republican senators, at least seven Democratic senators (thus dealing with the filibuster), and a majority in the House of Representatives.
So, the move here is of limited value, more of a message by President Biden about House Republican partisanship.
Fix the Court's argument against the latter is dubious. The House had time to pass the bill before the election. If they did and Biden vetoed then the blame could clearly be put in his hands.
This isn't an either/or thing. The House is culpable for failing to pass the bill before the election, since everyone knew it was DOA otherwise (partisans being partisans, the losing party was always going to back out after). But that does not make Biden any less culpable for vetoing the bill--putting rank partisanship above the national interest is bad, no matter how predicable it is.
I wish I shared your optimism that the bill will be passed in the next session, but even some of the democratic sponsors in the senate have already reversed course. The fact of the matter is that this was probably the best shot at addressing the judicial shortage for at least the next four years, but now it's dead because neither the House nor Biden could get over their partisan bullshit. And that sucks.
Yes, it makes Biden "less" culpable.
He could have ridden above it all since Democrats are supposed to be like sainted moms about such things, but yes, he's human.
And, "national interest" includes responding to partisan moves. If you just do nothing, it is an incentive to do more of the same. Biden repeatedly played the bipartisan game when it required giving up stuff. House Republicans, who as FTC notes already are not working with clean hands on this, have less going for them.
Republicans get more judges with this bill. Some Democrats support it. Multiple Senate Democrats, especially in swing states, are not going to be red-hot partisans. Durbin supported blue slips out of a belief in bipartisanship, for instance.
At least that is a safe bet. So, yes, I'm fairly optimistic about it.
Ah, yes, the old "we've been too nice, it's time to fight dirty like the other guys" schtick.
This should lay waste to the idea that there are any moderate Democrats. The last one was Bill Clinton. Both Obama and Biden ran as moderates and then governed from the far-left.
The previous comment should lay waste to the idea that Lennyk78 has any idea what the far left actually is, or wants, or thinks. There are, as a first order approximation, zero people on the 'far left' who think Biden governed their way.
No, that's just because the Democrats have gone off the rails. Biden did everything he could to cater to the progressive left while going out of his way to antagonize the half the country that dislikes him.
Just need to get enough judges in place so that Trump can open up concentration camps for 100 million undesirable liberals America has.
It's amusing that you somehow think you're one of the people who survives such a scenario.
Can you at least get the terminology right?, it's "Vernichtungslager"
What's to stop the Republicans in the next Congress from simply passing the same bill, except this time, have Trump appoint all of the judges instead of them being spread out over 10 years? You would think that Biden would have been happy with the bipartisan version of the bill.
Nose, meet face.
Republicans don’t have 60 votes in the Senate for that. And if they nuke the filibuster to pass the bill, that makes it much easier for Democrats to pack the courts when they get in power (starting with the Supreme Court, followed by the appeals courts). I actually hope Republicans do this for that reason, but sadly they probably won’t.
If you'll recall who started this "nuclear option" stuff, there's no particular reason to think that Democrats would need Republicans to nuke the filibuster for them to pack the Court.
The only reason they didn't do it already is that they had too narrow of a Senate majority to survive a couple of defections. If they'd had a couple more Senators the Supreme court would have 15 members today.
Both sides are playing politics. Had the House passed the bill in August, Biden would likely have signed it into law. No more blame on Biden than on the House.
They were all convinced that Cums a Lot was going to win.
Come on, Shit for Brains. Most Democrats were confident that Biden would lose in a landslide. And, once he was out and Harris came in; AT MOST Democrats were confident that it would be a close 50-50 election.
*Your* deluded view that all Dems were convinced of a Harris win is based 100% on the voices you hear in your head, and 0% based on what countless Dem spokespeople actual wrote or said publicly in the months before the election.
Idiot.
"Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved"
Reason enough to veto. These silly names so they make a word.
Hatred is the royal road to foolishness. Anyone who follows Biden knows he is utterly vindictive. Remember the hot mic on Biden not long ago
President Biden: “No one fucks with a Biden.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-biden-no-one-fucks-202455091.html
The Great Unifier, my asss.
The one thing he's good at unifying is his shriveled up member and the anuses of little boys.
Interesting choice of words in the title there - the White House vetoes, not the President vetoes - even though the veto power is one that must necessarily be exercised by the President rather than his staff. The naturalness of writing Biden out of the narrative says something pretty sad about the state of our government and public discourse.
A lot of people think Biden isn’t making any of the decisions coming out of the White House.
Yes, if by "a lot of people" you mean 'a lot of idiots,' then you are certainly correct.
I remember back when the Volokh conspiracy was such a laughable hack fest.
This veto is unfortunate IMO. The new judgeships are needed, and not all Trump appointments to the bench during his first term are as loony as Matthew Kacsmaryk and Aileen Cannon. Elections have consequences.
Can judges be nominated and confirmed in pairs (or even larger groups)?
This would make it easy to expand the judiciary when opposite parties control the White House and the Senate-- no double-crosses possible
The Constitution doesn't dictate the details of the confirmation process, so, sure, the Senate could do dual confirmations if they wanted.
How about reducing the number of laws? Surely there are statutes to be repealed, categories of cases to shift to state court, etc.
Instead of more judges to spread the work around, this would slim down the workload so that the current court system can handle it.
Does anyone think Biden wrote this, or even read it?
Yes. Most people think he read it. Almost no one thinks Biden (or Trump, or Clinton, or FDR) actually wrote most of the more-famous speeches, signing statements, etc. Presidents hire extremely talented men and women to craft their words, so as to achieve maximum effectiveness. It one of the major reasons why Trump, when he tweets (or goes off-script, during a speech) sound so deranged. When he reads other people's words, he sounds like a normal human being. When he does his actual writing, he sounds like a maniacal and/or delusional asshole.
But, good question. There are probably lots of teenagers who have zero experience with how politics work, and who are naive enough to think that high-level politicians write their own speeches.