Wednesday, December 18

House passes bipartisan bill adding new judges that Biden has vowed to veto

Washington Despite President Joe Biden’s vow to veto it, the House of Representatives on Thursday approved a bipartisan bill supported by the federal judiciary that would add hundreds of new judgeships.

Prior to President-elect Donald Trump’s election victory last month, the law was regarded as uncontroversial and had already passed the Senate with bipartisan backing.

Massachusetts’ House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark urged colleagues to vote against the bill in a memo she sent out prior to Thursday’s vote.

She noted that although this plan aims to address our court system’s backlog, House Democrats should maintain objectivity on the implications of permitting a sizable number of new, vacant judgeships in the event of a Trump administration.

On Thursday, the bill was approved by the House by a vote of 236–173, with two Republicans voting against it and 29 Democrats supporting it. In August, it was unanimously approved by the Senate.

According to a statement from House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Democrats at the time backed the bill because they believed Kamala Harris would win the presidency. However, due to party politics, the Biden-Harris Administration has decided to threaten a veto, and Democrats have reacted negatively to this law, obstructing its advancement.

The law will relieve court system bottlenecks by creating 66 new district court judgeships, as requested by the federal judiciary itself.

The new judgeships would be staggered over time, so Trump would only have the chance to select 25 of the 66, despite Democrats’ complaints that the plan would give him more judgeships to fill.

The bill would be the first significant extension of judgeships since 1990 and was intended to be nonpartisan.

See also  The 61+ absolute best Black Friday deals of 2024, according to a shopping reporter

White House officials vowed to veto the law on Tuesday, claiming it was “unnecessary to the efficient and effective administration of justice.”

Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *