• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Federal Judgeships in the 118th or 119th Congress

Safiel

Safiel

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2023
Messages
1,584
Reaction score
2,117
Gender
Male
news.bloomberglaw.com

US Judges Make Unusual Hill Push for Bill on Overwhelmed Courts

A trio of federal judges visited Capitol Hill to advocate for legislation expanding the judiciary, assuming a somewhat unfamiliar role as lawmakers weigh whether to add federal trial court seats for the first time in decades.
news.bloomberglaw.com news.bloomberglaw.com

Federal Judges have been actively lobbying for new judgeships.


The Senate has passed a bill creating 63 new permanent judgeships and 3 new temporary judgeships, following the official Judicial Conference request for those judgeships. In addition they have passed a bill making all 10 current temporary judgeships permanent.

The House is sitting on both bills and no clue as to whether or not they will pass.

The Senate bill would create the new judgeships in 6 equal installments over 12 years, 11 in each installment.

The spreading out of the judgeships over such a long period was politically necessary to gain passage of the bill, so that no one President, Republican or Democrat, gets a huge windfall of judges to appoint.

Unfortunately, the number of judges is far too small to really get the judiciary to a good place on its caseload and by spreading them out so long, the judiciary will see little real relief as caseloads inevitably rise over these next 12 years.

And the bills do not address the Courts of Appeals at all.

My proposal based on a 400 caseload average would result in 150 new Judgeships created, 6 current Judgeships abolished, for a net gain of 144.

I have no ****ing clue how the Judicial Conference came to 66. Their numbers make no mathematical sense in relation to caseload. For example, they want to create a judgeship in the Northern District of Iowa, though clearly no new judgeship is needed.

District (Judicial Conference proposal versus my 400 caseload average proposal)

District of Maine (no recommendation vs minus 1)
District of New Hampshire (no recommendation vs minus 1)
Eastern District of New York (2 vs 7)
Southern District of New York (2 vs 8)
Western District of New York (1 vs 1)
District of Delaware (2 vs 3)
District of New Jersey (3 vs 4)
Eastern District of North Carolina (no recommendation vs 2)
District of South Carolina (no recommendation vs 1)
Southern District of West Virginia (no recommendation vs minus 1)
Northern District of Texas (1 vs 5)
Eastern District of Texas (2 vs 6)
Southern District of Texas (4 vs 8)
Western District of Texas (6 vs 12)
Eastern District of Kentucky (no recommendation vs minus 0.5)
Western District of Kentucky (no recommendation vs 0.5)
(A judgeship serving both the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky would be changed to serve only the Western District)
Eastern District of Michigan (no recommendation vs minus 1)
Western District of Michigan (no recommendation vs 1)
Southern District of Ohio (no recommendation vs 6)
Middle District of Tennessee (no recommendation vs 1)
Southern District of Illinois (no recommendation vs 1)
Northern District of Indiana (no recommendation vs 1)
Southern District of Indiana (1 vs 3)
Western District of Wisconsin (no recommendation vs 1)
Northern District of Iowa (1 vs no recommendation)
District of Minnesota (no recommendation vs 1)
Eastern District of Missouri (no recommendation vs 1)
District of Nebraska (1 vs no recommendation)
District of Arizona (2 vs 8)
Northern District of California (6 vs 4)
Eastern District of California (4 vs 6)
Central District of California (9 vs 18)
Southern District of California (2 vs 2)
District of Hawaii (no recommendation vs minus 1)
District of Idaho (1 vs 1)
District of Nevada (no recommendation vs 1)
District of Oregon (no recommendation vs 1)
Western District of Washington (no recommendation vs 1)
District of Colorado (2 vs 4)
Northern District of Oklahoma (1 vs 0.5)
Eastern District of Oklahoma (2 vs 0.5)
(A Judgeship serving both the Northern and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma would be changed only to serve the Eastern District and a new Judgeship would be created for the Northern District)
District of Utah (no recommendation vs 1)
District of Wyoming (no recommendation vs minus 1)
Northern District of Florida (1 vs 2)
Middle District of Florida (5 vs 11)
Southern District of Florida (3 vs 9)
Northern District of Georgia (2 vs 7)

Total (66 vs 144) (150 new Judgeships created and 6 Judgeships would be abolished)

I will talk about the Courts of Appeals in the next post.
 
The Senate proposal does not address Courts of Appeals judgeships.

The Judicial Conference only asked for 2, both in the Ninth Circuit.

My proposal is thus:

Circuit (Current +/- judges = New total)

District of Columbia (11 - 5 = 6) (The DC Circuit is ridiculously overstaffed, it could stand to lose almost half its judgeships)
1st (6 + 0 = 6)
2nd (13 + 1 = 14)
3rd (14 - 4 = 10)
4th (15 - 1 =14)
5th (17 + 5 = 22)
6th (16 - 2 = 14)
7th (11 - 1 = 10)
8th (11 + 0 = 11)
9th (29 + 3 = 32)
10th (12 - 4 = 8)
11th (12 + 5 = 17)
Federal (12 + 0 = 12)

17 Judgeships would be abolished, 14 would be created for a net loss of 3 circuit judgeships.

We have enough circuit judgeships. Just not effectively distributed.

The DC, 3rd and 10th clearly can lose numerous judgeships, while the 5th, 9th and 11th clearly need more.
 
If they're vacant, need to get them filled before the orange clown takes over.
 
Rich2018 said:
If they're vacant, need to get them filled before the orange clown takes over.
Click to expand...

Looks like Biden will get at least 12 more District Judgeships filled in the lame duck.

Unlikely that Trump could fill 150 NEW Judgeships in addition to regular occurring vacancies in current judgeships in a 4 year term.

If new Judgeships were created, some of the new Judgeships would likely be filled by the President elected in 2028.
 
Correcting the second post of this thread.

Circuit (Current +/- judges = New total)

District of Columbia (11 - 5 = 6) (The DC Circuit is ridiculously overstaffed, it could stand to lose almost half its judgeships)
1st (6 + 0 = 6)
2nd (13 + 1 = 14)
3rd (14 - 2 = 12) (corrected)
4th (15 + 0 = 15) (corrected)
5th (17 + 5 = 22)
6th (16 + 0 = 16) (corrected)
7th (11 + 0 = 11) (corrected)
8th (11 + 0 = 11)
9th (29 + 3 = 32)
10th (12 - 3 = 9) (corrected)
11th (12 + 5 = 17)
Federal (12 + 0 = 12)

So the bottom line is that the Courts of Appeals would gain 14 new Judgeships and lose 10 Judgeships for a net gain of 4.

Still mostly a matter of redistributing Judgeships, rather than adding them.
 
Looking at my proposal in the light of history.

My Courts of Appeals proposal only nets 4 new Judgeships far short of the record 35 created in 1978.

My District Court proposal nets 144 new Judgeships, which would be a record number of Judgeship creations, exceeding the record 117 District Judgeships created in 1978. However, as a percentage of existing Judgeships, it would be 21.4%, lower than the 29.7% of 1978 or the 25.7% of 1961.

At some point, Congress is going to have to deal with this issue, as the situation is getting critical in the Federal Judiciary in regards to lack of Judges to deal with the caseload.
 
Safiel said:
Looking at my proposal in the light of history.

My Courts of Appeals proposal only nets 4 new Judgeships far short of the record 35 created in 1978.

My District Court proposal nets 144 new Judgeships, which would be a record number of Judgeship creations, exceeding the record 117 District Judgeships created in 1978. However, as a percentage of existing Judgeships, it would be 21.4%, lower than the 29.7% of 1978 or the 25.7% of 1961.

At some point, Congress is going to have to deal with this issue, as the situation is getting critical in the Federal Judiciary in regards to lack of Judges to deal with the caseload.
Click to expand...

Making judges work harder ?
Perish the thought.
 
Rich2018 said:
Making judges work harder ?
Perish the thought.
Click to expand...

Federal Judges, just as everybody else in society, should have an expectation of a reasonable workload.

But much more of a consideration than that.

The PEOPLE who have to litigate in the Federal Courts have a RIGHT to expeditious justice, something they are currently being denied in numerous districts.

If your case must go to trial in the Eastern District of California, you are looking at a median time from filing to final disposition of 67.7 months . 5 YEARS and 7.7 MONTHS.

And that inevitably works in favor of the big companies, who have the time and money to wait and against the little guy who may need the money right away to survive. This allows big companies to simply strongarm people into settlements, knowing they cannot wait out the delays.

It also delays criminal justice and is one of the reason why criminal appeals can drag out for multiple decades.

I would be more than willing to shit can all future Ford-class aircraft carriers and other military waste to pay for these new Judgeships.
 
I think judges should be impartial and just rule on the law.
 
Peter said:
I think judges should be impartial and just rule on the law.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, our Constitutional system of appointment works against that goal.

I would like to see the Constitution changed, so that merit panels are established, with bipartisan membership and a 2/3rds majority required to recommend candidates. This would ensure that successful candidates would be towards the center and would tend to screen out the extremes on either side.
 
Rich2018 said:
And how exactly would you recruit them ?
Click to expand...

Bring their salaries into parity with their State/Federal Attorney counterparts.

Create more positions.

There are plenty of attorneys that are willing to be defenders. The two biggest barriers to recruitment.

Insufficient pay.

Overwork.
 
Safiel said:
Bring their salaries into parity with their State/Federal Attorney counterparts.

Create more positions.

There are plenty of attorneys that are willing to be defenders. The two biggest barriers to recruitment.

Insufficient pay.

Overwork.
Click to expand...

Awesome, more public spending, or would you take money away from existing budgets like the $840 billion defense budget ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Awesome, more public spending, or would you take money away from existing budgets like the $840 billion defense budget ?
Click to expand...

I wrote in another thread just hours ago that I would be happy to take an axe to the Department of Defense. Including cancelling all future Ford-class carriers.

Just cutting ONE Ford carrier would MORE than pay for all the Judges and Defenders we need.
 
Safiel said:
I wrote in another thread just hours ago that I would be happy to take an axe to the Department of Defense. Including cancelling all future Ford-class carriers.

Just cutting ONE Ford carrier would MORE than pay for all the Judges and Defenders we need.
Click to expand...

I would slash the defense budget in half.
 
Rich2018 said:
I would slash the defense budget in half.
Click to expand...

Let's just say, without using exact figures, I would head in much that direction.

Lots of stuff to prune. Getting at or near 50% of the Defense budget is feasible.
 
Safiel said:
Let's just say, without using exact figures, I would head in much that direction.

Lots of stuff to prune. Getting at or near 50% of the Defense budget is feasible.
Click to expand...

AQnd sensible - it would free up about $400 billion for more worthy investments.
 
No new Judgeships in the 118th Congress.

www.whitehouse.gov

Message to the Senate on the President's Veto of S. 4199 | The White House

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 4199, the "Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024" or the
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov

It opens the possibility of Republicans trying to push a partisan bill in the 119th Congress.

But they would have to commit to abolishing the filibuster to do so. Not sure if they have reached that point.
 
Safiel said:
No new Judgeships in the 118th Congress.

www.whitehouse.gov

Message to the Senate on the President's Veto of S. 4199 | The White House

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 4199, the "Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024" or the
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov

It opens the possibility of Republicans trying to push a partisan bill in the 119th Congress.

But they would have to commit to abolishing the filibuster to do so. Not sure if they have reached that point.
Click to expand...

They'll not do that - one of their favorite tools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom