Staff ReportsThe House of Representatives has recently passed a bill to expand the federal judiciary, despite President Biden’s threat to veto it. The bill, humorously dubbed the JUDGES Act (Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved), seeks to create 66 new judgeships to alleviate the significant backlogs facing the judicial system. This push comes after unanimous support in the Senate back in August, but with a Democratic administration now in play, the prospects of it becoming law have dimmed, as Biden insists such expansion is just not necessary.
One must wonder—what kind of logic dictates that adding judges in response to a backlog of cases is “unnecessary”? This legislation marks the first major increase in the number of judges since 1990; a time when the judicial system functioned with far fewer digital distractions and social media drama. Those in favor, including 29 brave Democrats who crossed partisan lines to support their conservative counterparts, understand that the judicial system is struggling and needs reinforcements. Yet, the current administration appears more interested in party loyalty than in judicial efficiency.
The House of Representatives voted 236-173 to pass a bill that would add 66 new judges to understaffed federal courts nationally, a bill that outgoing Democratic President Joe Biden has threatened to veto https://t.co/68qSk7GOyl pic.twitter.com/jVVniMmcDK
— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) December 15, 2024
Despite the initial consensus surrounding this bill, the landscape shifted dramatically with the rise of the Trump administration. Suddenly, legislation that was once a bipartisan effort took on the air of contention. The House managed a vote of 236-173 in favor of the bill; however, it was clear that many Democrats shifted their stance once they realized they wouldn’t be able to slide the bill through under a President Kamala Harris. Irony doesn’t even begin to cover it—the once uncontroversial bill now stands as a political football as the Administration focuses on securing a legacy rather than improving the nation’s judicial system.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was quick to point out the hypocrisy in the Democratic party’s reversal. Once eager to support an effective judicial strategy, their enthusiasm seemingly evaporated under the weight of partisan bickering. The Democrats now cling to the notion that the bill should be abandoned, even if it means ignoring the dire needs of the courts and the common citizen who often bears the brunt of an overburdened legal system.
The veto threat from Biden is not just a political maneuver; it serves as a glaring reminder of the hyper-partisanship that has tainted Washington politics. Instead of focusing on tangible progress and the well-being of the judicial system, the President aims to preserve a legacy built on political back-and-forth—the very thing the people are increasingly frustrated with. It’s evident that, for this administration, party lines take precedence over the pressing need for a properly staffed judiciary. Ultimately, this is yet another instance of how the left is willing to sacrifice effective governance at the altar of political gamesmanship. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if politicians understood that their priority should be putting America First?
