In recent decades, a quadrennial subject of contention in the Senate has been its processing of U.S. circuit and district court nominations in presidential election years. Senators, for example, have differed, usually along party lines, over whether, or to what extent, it is customary during presidential election years for the Senate to slow down the pace at which it confirms judicial nominations. They have disagreed on whether Senate processing of judicial nominations customarily drops off, or stops altogether, at some predetermined point, in anticipation of remaining judicial vacancies being filled by the next elected President. Some Senators have said they expected Senate processing of lower court nominations to drop off and then to end earlier in presidential election years than in other years. Such expectations, they asserted, were supported by past Senate practice, and by an informal Senate understanding, sometimes called the "Thurmond Rule." In keeping with this understanding, the Senate, after a certain point in a presidential election year, would generally no longer act on judicial nominations, or act only on uncontroversial consensus nominees supported by the Senate leaders of both parties. Other Senators, however, have disputed that the Senate customarily slows down the process of confirming judicial nominations in presidential election years, or that Senators have a shared understanding about how late in a presidential election year judicial nominations should be processed. They have pointed to presidential election years in which relatively large numbers of judicial nominations have been confirmed or in which such confirmations occurred relatively late in the year. Early in 2012, attention in the Senate again turned to judicial nominations in presidential election years—with questions raised about the relevance of past Senate practice for the number and timing of judicial nominations to be confirmed in 2012. In a January 26, 2012, statement, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted that the committee in 2011 had approved "a significant number of judicial and executive nominees." He added, however, that relevant to the outlook for Senate action on nominations in 2012 was a "circumstance that changes this year"—namely, "that this is a presidential election year. The historical practice has been for work to slow down a great deal during such years." Subsequently, in a February 7, 2012, floor statement, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed concern that portrayals of past Senate practices in presidential election years might be used by the other party in the Senate to justify blocking further confirmations of judicial nominations. "It is troubling," Senator Leahy said, "to hear Senate Republicans already talking about how they plan to resort to the Thurmond Rule to shut down all judicial confirmations for the rest of the year." In contrast to such a possibility, Senator Leahy pointed to the 2004 and 2008 presidential election years, during which, he maintained, the Senate confirmed numerous judicial nominations well into both years. Similar concerns were expressed three months later by Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois. In a May 7, 2012, floor statement, he said that presidential election year politics were delaying Senate consideration of judicial nominations. All we know is that in a political campaign year, politics rule, and in this situation many Republicans are holding up perfectly fine nominees approved by Democrats and Republicans in committee for no other reason but the hope that they can win back the White House in November and fill the nominees with their favorites. This view was challenged two days later, at a May 9, 2012, hearing on judicial nominations, by Senator Mike Lee of Utah (a member of the Judiciary Committee's minority). Senator Lee rebutted the notion that the Senate minority, out of presidential election year considerations, was delaying Senate actions on judicial nominations. "So far this year," he said, the Senate was "well above historical standards," with Senate confirmations "almost double the normal pace" for a presidential election year. Similarly, on June 6, 2012, during floor debate on a district court nomination, Senator Grassley, declared, "We continue to confirm the President's nominees at a very brisk pace." The Senate was doing so, he added, "in a presidential election year—typically a time when judicial nominations are limited to consensus nominees. Yet here we are considering a controversial nomination." A week later, however, press accounts reported that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had decided to oppose further Senate floor votes on all circuit court nominations (consensus or otherwise) until after the November 2012 presidential election. One of the accounts reported that, while the "blockade" on circuit court nominations would go into effect immediately, "district court nominees will likely continue to be confirmed until at least early September." The account said that, in support of the decision, the Senate minority would invoke the "Thurmond Rule," a doctrine interpreted, according to the account, to hold that "within six months of a presidential election, the opposition party can, and typically does, refuse to allow votes" on circuit court nominations. The decision of Republican Leader McConnell, according to the account, was "welcomed by GOP colleagues." Among them, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, reportedly said of the decision, "I think this is about the time. This is traditionally when the curtain comes down on circuit court judges." On June 14, 2012, Chairman Leahy, in a prepared statement, criticized the Republican leadership decision to oppose further Senate votes on circuit court nominations during the remainder of 2012. Senator Leahy said, in part, I have yet to hear any good reason why we should not continue to vote on well-qualified, consensus nominees, just as we did up until September of the last two presidential election years. I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why we cannot work to solve the problem of high vacancies for the American people. I will continue to work with the Senate leadership to try to confirm as many of President Obama's qualified judicial nominees as possible to fill the many judicial vacancies that burden our courts and the American people across the country. In subsequent floor remarks, on June 26, 2012, Senator Leahy inserted into the Congressional Record a June 20 letter from the president of the American Bar Association addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Republican Leader McConnell. The letter urged the Senate leaders to schedule floor votes on three pending circuit court nominees "before July." (The letter also urged Senate confirmation votes, "on a weekly basis thereafter," for district court nominees "who have strong bipartisan support.") Underlying the ABA's desire for prompt confirmations, the letter indicated, was its "concern for the longstanding number of judicial vacancies" and its positive assessment of the three circuit nominees. The ABA letter noted that "recent news stories" about Senate processing of judicial nominations had alluded to the Thurmond Rule, casting it "as a precedent under which the Senate, after a specified date in a presidential election year, ceases to vote on nominees to the federal circuit courts of appeals." The ABA, the letter said, had taken "no position on what invocation of the 'Thurmond Rule' actually means or whether it represents wise policy." It noted that "there has been no consistently observed date at which this has occurred during the presidential election years from 1980 to 2008." However, in the past three election years of 2000, 2004, and 2008, the letter also noted, the last circuit court confirmations occurred either in June or July. As a result, the letter continued: In deference to these historical cut-off dates and because of our conviction that the Senate has a continuing constitutional duty to act with due diligence to reduce the dangerously high vacancy rate that is adversely affecting our federal judiciary, we exhort you to schedule votes on these three outstanding circuit court nominees this month. In his floor speech, Senator Leahy praised the nominees mentioned in the ABA letter, as well as another circuit nominee reported out of the Judiciary Committee, as highly qualified, uncontroversial consensus nominees. A decision by the Senate's minority party to block votes "on superbly qualified circuit court nominees with strong bipartisan support," Senator Leahy said, "is a new and damaging application of the Thurmond Rule." On June 26, 2012, the same day that Senator Leahy introduced the ABA letter into the Record , Senator Grassley released a letter that he and Senate Republican Leader McConnell had written in response to the ABA president. The letter criticized the ABA for "urging, for the first time, confirmation of particular circuit court nominations despite the existence" of the Thurmond Rule. The letter continued: By any objective measure—overall circuit court vacancy rate, vacancies on the respective circuit courts, or judicial emergency designation—our appellate courts are doing at least as well, and in most respects much better, now than when our Democratic colleagues invoked the Rule both times during the last administration. Given this exceptionally fair treatment of President Obama's judicial nominees, it is curious that your organization would chose now to urge the Senate not to follow its practice of suspending the processing of circuit court nominations in the months preceding a presidential election. This unprecedented action raises questions about the American Bar Association's objectivity and neutrality. The McConnell/Grassley letter also drew attention to certain circuit courts where, either in June 2004 or in June 2008, according to the letter, vacancies were at a crisis level. The letter said that, although "well qualified" nominees of President George W. Bush had been pending for these judicial vacancies (some for a year or more), the Senate's majority, then of the other party, refused to process their nominations, in anticipation of the November presidential election. Senators, recent debate has shown, have differed on how many U.S. circuit and district court nominations the Senate should confirm in 2012 and how late in the year it should continue to confirm them.