PD Editorial: Trump dials up the judicial wars with California snub

Partisan rancor over federal judicial nominations isn't likely to calm down anytime soon. The Trump administration assured emotions will run even hotter after moving forward with a slate of California nominees without engaging the state's U.S. senators in good faith.

Home-state senators used to be given enormous deference in the selection of judicial nominations - too much deference, in our opinion. Unless they signed off on a nominee, by submitting a blue slip of paper to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nomination would not move forward.

This was too much power - often wielded anonymously - to put in any one senator's hands. When both Oregon senators refused to submit blue slips for controversial nominee Ryan Bounds, selected by President Donald Trump to serve on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Senate Republicans threw out the blue slip rule entirely, as they had earlier nuked the 60-vote filibuster for U.S. Supreme Court nominees.

The blue slip process was undemocratic and unnecessary. Bounds, for instance, was forced to pull his nomination when controversial writings of his were made public. The facts and public scrutiny of those facts, not one senator's peeve, scuttled his judicial career.

But that doesn't mean a president should completely ignore the wishes of home-state senators, as Trump did here.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein had been working on an agreement to nominate a slate of candidates that included at least one recommended by the Democratic senator. “I repeatedly told the White House I wanted to reach an agreement on a package of 9th Circuit nominees, but … the White House moved forward without consulting me,” Feinstein said in a statement.

The White House abruptly submitted a list of three candidates that didn't include anyone recommended by Feinstein.

The Constitution gives Trump the authority to nominate justices. But it gives the Senate the responsibility to “advise and consent” to those nominees. The advise portion of that responsibility should not be ignored, especially in these hyper-partisan times - not if the judiciary's reputation for nonpartisan impartiality is to survive.

Republicans have eliminated many of the rules that encouraged moderation on the part of the president in judicial nominations - rules, it should be noted, that they abused to prevent confirmation of many of President Barack Obama's nominees.

We weren't sad to see blue slips go, but there should be some room in the process for home-state senators and the president to have productive, respectful conversations about who should serve on the federal bench.

Despite this snub, Feinstein and Kamala Harris, California's junior senator, should avoid the temptation to vote against these nominees out of spite. Trump's nominees should be assessed fairly by the Senate and judged on their merit after due consideration and hearings.

The necessity of maintaining an independent, fair, impartial and nonpartisan judiciary in this nation cannot be overstated. It is a linchpin of our democracy, and citizens need to be able to trust that cases are decided based on the law and the Constitution, not partisan interests.

That can only be maintained if the nomination and confirmation process works with far more respect, cooperation and dignity than has been demonstrated in recent years.

You can send a letter to the editor at letters@pressdemocrat.com