Skip to main content

View Diary: The federal judiciary in crisis (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Tremendously important & one I'll sign. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan, sturunner

    However, there hasn't been a significant judgeship bill since 1990. Since 1960, the number of new permanent and "other" district judgeships added (i.e., temporary, temporary-to-permanent, or roving-to-permanent) bills breaks down this way:

    1961 - 61/7
    1966 - 30/6
    1970 - 58/8
    1978 - 113/5
    1984 - 53/10
    1990 - 61/25
    1999 - 9
    2000 - 10
    2002 - 8/12

    The Judicial Conference says it needs 65/28 more -- and that's just for the district courts. Critical as I am of the president's failure to press on judicial nominations, that need didn't magically develop during his term. We need a judiciary bill, not just a couple of judges thrown in as a sweetener on an immigration bill.

    (BTW, WaPo notwithstanding, the relationship between population and judgeship needs in the federal courts is not straightforward, and that's not the metric they use. They use weighted case filings. Obviously there's a relationship, but nothing like in state courts. Expect to hear Grassley harping on the fact that filings went down between 2011 and 2012. It's a bad argument, but I bet we hear it.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (56)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Law (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • United States (14)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site