The caliber of nominees for federal judgeships is declining, Sen. Paul Simon (D., Ill.) said Monday, and the Senate should toughen its standards to ensure that only high-quality judges serve.
”Those appointed to our federal bench for life should be the best the legal profession has to offer; too many clearly are not,” Simon said at a breakfast meeting with reporters.
A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Simon is in charge of screening by Democrats of judicial nominees. Too many nominees get the lowest acceptable rating, qualified, from the American Bar Association, he said, and the Senate should be more active in challenging appointees chosen for ideological reasons.
”We have to raise those standards,” Simon said. ”We have nominees appear before us that I think, `I hope this nominee doesn`t get a complex case.` That shouldn`t happen.”
He said he hoped his comments would spark a ”fuller public discussion.” Democrats on the Judiciary Committee may ask for hearings on how the Senate should conduct its review of nominees and what standards to use, he said.
Simon suggested tougher screening by the ABA and other groups and greater resolve by senators to block nominees whose views are too extreme.
”The Senate`s willingness to play a more active role may, in fact, be the best strategy for ultimately reducing the role of ideology in the process,” he said. ”The Senate`s failure to play that role leaves today`s appointments process ideological, but solely on the President`s terms.”
Bar groups should specifically say if a nominee should be approved or rejected, he said. In the last year, half of the appellate court nominees received the ABA`s qualified rating and 48 percent of the District Court nominees got the same rating. The ABA uses a scale of exceptionally well qualified, well qualified, qualified and not qualified.
