Should sitting judges — especially the controversial James Boasberg and Tanya Chutkan — be able to tell the president what other judges he can appoint? Of course not. But under the current system for selecting D.C.’s local judges, that’s exactly what happens.
It’s bad enough that those challenging Trump administration policies have sought to bring their cases before D.C. federal judges like those mentioned above, who they believe will be inclined to rule against the administration — especially on hot button issues like abortion, immigration, government spending, and trans-identifying individuals in the military, just to name a few. But what’s worse is that those same judges have been empowered to help select other judges who are likely to have the same radically different (and sometimes dangerous) view of their judicial role — regardless of the wishes of the sitting president.
Here’s the backstory: For most of our nation’s history, the president appointed District of Columbia judges via the familiar system outlined in the Constitution. When a vacancy occurred, the president would nominate a replacement and appoint that person once confirmed by the Senate.
But starting in 1973 (and slightly before), with the advent of D.C.’s “Home Rule,” Congress radically altered not only the structure and jurisdiction of the district’s courts but also the method by which their judges were selected. Congress ostensibly enacted these “reforms” to give local leaders a greater say in who sat on D.C.’s newly created courts and to make the process “nonpartisan” and “apolitical.”
But we know that selecting judges is an inherently political exercise. And in practice, any impartial observer would have to admit that the current system has loaded the dice to make it impossible for any constitutionally conservative judge to make it onto the bench.
Hellbound and Down 