By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Biden vetoed a bill creating 66 new federal judgeships, citing concerns over the bill’s rushed passage and unanswered questions regarding allocation and the impact of senior judges. The White House statement highlighted a lack of sufficient study on the need for additional judgeships and raised suspicions about the bill’s true motivations, suggesting political maneuvering rather than genuine judicial need. Despite bipartisan initial support and arguments for addressing case delays, the veto effectively kills the legislation in the current Congress due to an insufficient margin for overriding it. The bill’s passage in the Senate under Democratic control and subsequent House action after a Republican presidential win fueled accusations of political gamesmanship.
Read the original article here
President Biden’s recent veto of a bill designed to increase the number of federal judgeships, a move ostensibly intended to give a future Trump administration more judicial appointments, has sparked considerable debate. The veto itself is a clear instance of political maneuvering, a calculated response to what many perceive as bad faith actions by House Republicans.
The timing of the House’s vote on the bill is the crux of the matter. While the Senate passed the bill months earlier, in August, the House inexplicably delayed its vote until after the November election. This delay, coming after an apparent bipartisan agreement to pass the legislation, suggests an intentional effort to leverage the bill for political gain depending on the election outcome. Had the House voted in August, as originally planned, the veto wouldn’t have been necessary. This delayed action undeniably transformed a potentially bipartisan effort into a partisan chess match.
The argument that the bill is necessary to alleviate the heavy workload on the existing federal judiciary holds merit. An increasing caseload does necessitate a larger pool of judges, improving efficiency and reducing wait times for justice. However, the manner in which the Republicans handled the legislation tainted the process, rendering the need for additional judges secondary to the political considerations surrounding the bill’s passage.
Biden’s veto, while seemingly a political countermove, can also be seen as a strategic decision. By vetoing the bill under these circumstances, he’s not just rejecting additional seats; he’s rejecting the underlying political manipulation. The president’s action serves as a direct response to the Republicans’ late-game political maneuvering, acting as a deterrent to similar tactics in the future. It’s a clear signal that this kind of political gamesmanship will have consequences.
One could argue that the veto is a form of “quid pro quo,” directly referencing the Republican Party’s past actions regarding the confirmation of Biden’s own judicial nominees. It’s a tit-for-tat response, a countermove within the broader context of ongoing political battles over judicial appointments. While this response might be deemed controversial, it’s undeniably consistent with typical political strategies used by both parties in recent decades.
The concern that Republicans could simply reintroduce the bill after a Trump victory is valid. However, this scenario highlights the cyclical nature of such political battles. While it’s possible for the legislation to reappear, it underscores that the initial actions that led to the veto will likely continue to influence future attempts. The incident serves as a significant political event, shaping the landscape of future judicial appointments and setting a precedent for future negotiations between the parties.
The argument that Democrats have engaged in similar procedural maneuvers in the past is undeniable, although the claim of 30 years of consistent such action requires further scrutiny. Past actions, however, do not justify the Republicans’ questionable timing in this instance. The Republicans’ delay until after the election is the clear act of bad faith, thereby altering the nature of the initial bipartisan intent.
The comparison to past instances of Senate obstruction, like the withholding of votes on Supreme Court nominations, or the rapid passage of lengthy legislation without sufficient time for review, is often raised. While these historical events demonstrate a pattern of political gamesmanship, they don’t fully excuse the actions of House Republicans in this case. The fact remains, the Republicans fundamentally altered the spirit of an apparent agreement.
Finally, while the need for additional judges is a legitimate concern, the President’s veto is ultimately a response to a blatantly partisan move by the House Republicans. The timing of their action overshadowed the pressing need for judicial resources and ultimately created a situation where a veto became the most logical response. The issue is not simply about the number of judges; it’s about upholding the integrity of the legislative process and responding to political manipulation.