Judges and politics

Last month, President George W. Bush nominated U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle to the U.S. 4th Circuit of the Court of Appeals. Supported by Republican Sen. Jesse Helms but opposed by Democratic Sen. John Edwards, Boyle awaits Senate confirmation. Although Edwards has no formal power to block the nomination single-handedly, Senate tradition would allow the practice.

But Edwards has proposed a compromise that would best benefit North Carolina and the 4th Circuit--pairing Boyle for approval with black North Carolina Judge James Wynn.

No lifetime appointee among the 13 members of the appellate court has been black, a stunning fact given that the court's jurisdiction encompasses the largest black population among the appellate circuits. Furthermore, the court, which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, does not include any North Carolinians. Although all judges should certainly remain impartial, diverse backgrounds can offer unique and needed perspectives.

Both senators would favor judges with similar views to their own, but fighting to the bitter end would be self-defeating when a mutual compromise can be made. Wynn, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton but later rejected by the Republican-controlled Senate, represents that compromise. Pairing Boyle with Wynn would allow the state to have two qualified judges serve on the court. Both senators would have successfully pushed through a judge he supported, and the 4th Circuit would finally have a black person sit as a permanent member.

Still, even after the proposed pairing, two judicial vacancies from the appellate court would remain. Historically, the court has never seated the full 15 judges allotted, but reappointing Roger Gregory and pairing him with a conservative as well may provide another mutually beneficial compromise. Last December, Clinton gave Gregory, the first black man ever to sit on the 4th Circuit, a non-permanent, recess appointment to the court.

While pairing judicial nominations is beneficial in this case, such a compromise is not necessarily optimal for every circuit on the national level. Each appellate jurisdiction has its own unique circumstances, and the president and the Senate must take this into account.

Even though Bush is president and has the constitutional responsibility of making judicial appointments, the Senate--now controlled by Democrats--must confirm those appointments. In a divided government, no side can force its will upon the other, and Bush's appointments must reflect this limitation.

The opposition has the prerogative to delay Bush's appointments, but such behavior is counterproductive if qualified candidates are rejected. Republicans did hold up Clinton's appointments when he was president, but senators should be above this behavior.