Infamous Anniversary for Courts

Next Tuesday, four long years will have passed since President Clinton first nominated U.S. District Judge Richard A. Paez to a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s a sorry moment.

The Senate has long toyed with Clinton’s judicial nominees, grilling them mercilessly at Judiciary Committee hearings, then deep-freezing the nominations by refusing to call an up-or-down floor vote. No one has waited as long as Paez. First nominated to the 9th Circuit on Jan. 25, 1996, Paez, now 52, has been before the Judiciary Committee three times. Once, the committee refused to act; once, it approved him only to have the Senate let his nomination die by failing to vote. Last July, the committee approved Paez again, but the Senate still has not voted.

Why the delays? What so troubles Senate leaders about Paez? An extensive review of Paez’s record, on the federal trial bench and, before that, on the Los Angeles Municipal Court and as a public-interest attorney, was published earlier this week in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, which covers legal affairs. The record reveals a jurist who is thoughtful, smart and unbiased. Regardless, some conservatives remain convinced, largely without evidence, that Paez has “activist” tendencies.

Late last year, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he would call a floor vote by March 15 on Paez and a San Francisco lawyer, Marsha Berzon, whose nomination to the 9th Circuit also has languished.

There are now six vacant seats on the 9th Circuit Court and 76 on federal courts nationwide. The Senate’s humiliating treatment of nominees like Paez and Berzon only serves to dissuade worthy men and women from serving on the federal bench.