President Biden on Monday vetoed a bill that would have added 66 federal district judgeships over a span of more than a decade, a once-bipartisan effort designed so that neither political party would have an advantage in molding the federal judiciary. 

Three presidential administrations, beginning with the incoming Trump administration, and six Congresses would have had the opportunity to appoint the new trial court judgeships, according to the legislation, which had support from organizations representing judges and attorneys.

Despite arguments from the organizations that additional judgeships would help with cases that have seen serious delays in resolution and ease concerns over access to justice, the White House said that Biden would veto the bill.

In a statement, Biden said he made his decision because the “hurried action” by the House of Representatives left open questions about “life-tenured” positions.

BIDEN’S DECISION TO COMMUTE SENTENCES FOR DEATH ROW INMATES SPARKS SOCIAL MEDIA FRENZY

“The House of Representative’s hurried action fails to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the new judgeships are allocated, and neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate explored fully how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships,” Biden said.

“The efficient and effective administration of justice requires that these questions about need and allocation be further studied and answered before we create permanent judgeships for life-tenured judges,” Biden added.

The White House announced Monday that Biden vetoed a bill that would have added 66 federal district judgeships over a span of more than a decade. (Pete Marovich/Getty Images, File)

He said the bill would also have created new judgeships in states where senators have not filled existing judicial vacancies and that those efforts “suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now.

GOP CONGRESSMAN CHARGES BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S FOREIGN POLICY ‘LEFT THE WORLD IN A WORSE OFF PLACE’

When Biden’s plan to veto the legislation surfaced earlier this month, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told “America’s Newsroom” that the act is “the last spasm of a lame-duck.”

“President Biden and his team don’t want to allow it to become law simply because a Republican administration would get to appoint some of the judges,” Kennedy said. 

“I wish they’d put the country first,” the senator added.

The legislation was passed unanimously in August under the Democratic-controlled Senate, though the Republican-led House brought the measure to the floor only after Donald Trump was reelected president in November, creating an air of political gamesmanship.

Biden’s veto essentially shelves the legislation for the current Congress. 

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Overturning Biden’s veto would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and the House vote fell well short of that margin.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Mitt Romney delivered his farewell speech before the U.S. Senate in early December. It isn’t hyperbole to say it marked the end of an era.

Romney’s time in public service, which has spanned well over two decades, will be considered historic — he is the only American to serve as governor of one state and senator for another, as well as presidential nominee for a major political party. But perhaps more important, Romney’s departure, along with others recently, represents the end of a period in which bipartisanship and dealmaking have been valued, or even aspired to, in Washington.

What we are left with is a Senate — and politics in general — that is too much like the House of Representatives: fundamentally partisan and majoritarian, less interested in cutting deals or passing major legislation, and far more inclined toward showmanship than workmanship.

Consider other departures from the Senate, including Democrats-turned-independents Joe Manchin III and Kyrsten Sinema, who conclude their service this year. And in the GOP, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Roy Blunt of Missouri, who left the chamber when their terms were up in 2023. The Republicans were firm in their conservative principles but welcomed opportunities to work with legislators from the other side of the aisle. Numerous examples can be found of similar recent departures from the House of Representatives as well.

Romney’s speech, typically gracious, acknowledged that his significant successes were built on partnerships with others, and that his “life’s work has been a group affair.” In the Senate, he has been a linchpin for bipartisan legislation on issues as eclectic as electoral reform, pandemic-era economic relief, marriage rights and infrastructure development. As governor of Massachusetts, he had a record of fiscal conservatism and reform. And as a presidential candidate, he sounded early warnings about the dangers of Vladimir Putin and a resurgent Russia and presaged the increasingly tense relationship between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China.

But of all his many accomplishments, it’s clear there is none he is prouder of than his effort to bring affordable health insurance to every resident of Massachusetts. Indeed, elements of “Romneycare” made their way into Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, and the Massachusetts law was the first major stroke of bipartisanship in Romney’s career in public service. It attracted the overwhelming support of state legislators from both parties, with the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy — whom Romney ran against (and lost to) for U.S. Senate in 1994 — standing beside him when he signed the state health reform legislation into law in April 2006.

The irony is that Romney’s bold healthcare bipartisan dealmaking may have signaled the beginning of the end of the era in which working together advanced one’s political career. The tea party movement burst onto the political scene in 2009 and foretold a time just a few years later, when Romney’s signature gubernatorial achievement would turn into an albatross in his presidential campaign, as Washington battled over Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act had seeming structural similarities with Romney’s reforms, most notably the inclusion of an individual mandate for health insurance. (The provision was so broadly unpopular that Congress and then-President Trump effectively eliminated the requirement from Obamacare in 2017.)

I served as Romney’s policy director in that 2012 campaign, and we were constantly working to emphasize the benefits of the Massachusetts healthcare reforms without at the same time appearing to extol the ACA. No matter that Romney’s was a state plan and, as he argued, state policies might not be well-suited for the federal government. Rather than a badge of honor, Romney’s ultimate act of bipartisanship was seen by some Republican primary voters as a scarlet letter.

In the years since that 2012 campaign, we have witnessed the breaking apart of the political middle. The rhetoric around the 2024 election demonstrated that common ground among Americans is shrinking by the minute. And voices on both the far left and right have gained in notoriety and influence.

To close his farewell speech, Romney warned of the challenge created by those “who would tear at our unity.” It is a real challenge indeed, and one that we are sadly less able to confront with Romney and others like him gone from the Senate and public service.

Lanhee J. Chen, a contributing writer to Opinion, is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and the director of domestic policy studies in the public policy program at Stanford University. He was a candidate for California state controller in 2022.

Allies of Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are urging President-elect Trump to publicly reaffirm support for the House GOP leader to avoid a messy, protracted battle that could delay the certification of his own victory.

“If we have some kind of protracted fight where we can’t elect a speaker — the speaker’s not elected; we’re not sworn in. And if we’re not sworn in, we can’t certify the election,” Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital.

“I would hope that President Trump would chime in and talk to those who are maybe a little hesitant, and say, ‘We’ve got to get going. We don’t have time.’”

Meanwhile, Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital “it would be immensely helpful” if Trump chimed in.

TOP TRUMP AIDES JOIN GROUP PREPPING TO SHORE UP SUPPORT FOR MAGA AGENDA

“Any time would be great, but right after Christmas if President Trump said, ‘You know, listen’ — it would even be really cool if somehow Mike Johnson ended up at Mar-a-Lago for Christmas… wherever the president is,” Fallon said. “I think it would be incredibly powerful.”

House lawmakers are returning to Washington, D.C., for a chamber-wide vote to elect the speaker on Friday, Jan. 3. Just days later, on Monday, Jan. 6, the House will meet to certify the results of the 2024 election.

Johnson is facing a potentially bruising battle to win the speaker’s gavel for a full Congressional term, with several House Republicans vocally critical of the Louisiana Republican and his handling of government funding.

His predecessor went through 14 public defeats in his quest to win the gavel, finally securing it after days of negotiations with holdouts on the 15th House-wide vote.

When he was ousted, Johnson won after a three-week inter-GOP battle that saw Congress paralyzed for its duration.

But some House Republicans are now warning that they can afford few delays in what Trump himself said he hopes will be a very active first 100 days of his second term.

“To ensure President Trump can take office and hit the ground running on Jan. 20, we must be able to certify the 2024 election on Jan. 6. However, without a speaker, we cannot complete this process,” Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., told Fox News Digital. 

Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, is one of Johnson’s defenders (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Tenney warned it could delay “the launch of his agenda.”

Congress narrowly avoided a partial government shutdown hours after the Dec. 20 federal funding deadline, passing a bill to extend that deadline to March 14 while also extending several other key programs and replenishing the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund.

It angered GOP hardliners who opposed the addition of unrelated policy riders to what they believed would be a more straightforward government funding extension.

Johnson also tried and failed to heed Trump’s demand to pair action on the debt limit — which was suspended until January 2025 — with his government funding bill, after 38 House Republicans and all but two Democrats voted against it.

Fallon told Fox News Digital that it did not necessarily mean they would defy Trump if he backed Johnson again ahead of Jan. 3.

“”Some of the people in the 38 — that was more of a principle thing…they really want to attack the debt,” Fallon said. “They felt like just letting the debt ceiling lapse for two years…they like to use that as a negotiating tool to say, ‘Let’s reduce the debt to GDP ratio.’”

SENATE PASSES BILL TO STOP SHUTDOWN, SENDING IT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN’S DESK

But one of Johnson’s biggest critics, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has already told reporters he is not voting for Johnson next year.

Two more, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., and Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, suggested they were no longer committed to backing Johnson over the weekend.

Meanwhile, there have been media reports that Trump is unhappy with how Johnson handled government funding and that his demand for the debt limit was not heeded. 

Trump himself has not mentioned Johnson publicly since the Friday vote. But top Trump allies, like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, have come to Johnson’s defense.

It took 15 rounds of voting for ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy to win the gavel (Valerie Plesch)

“He’s undoubtedly the most conservative Speaker of the House we’ve had in our lifetime,” Cruz said on his podcast “The Verdict.” “If Mike Johnson is toppled as Speaker of the House, we will end up with a speaker of the House who is much, much more liberal than Mike Johnson.”

Others have also signaled that Trump’s influence will weigh heavily on what ultimately happens.

One House Republican granted anonymity to speak freely told Fox News Digital early last week that they considered opposing Johnson but said Trump would be the final deciding factor.

“I think, ultimately, it’s going to be decided who President Trump likes, because I believe that will weigh in heavily on the decision-making of that, because, currently, President Trump works very well with Mike Johnson. They have a great relationship,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

When asked if he would support Johnson if Trump did, despite opposing his government funding plans, Burchett said “Possibly.”

Johnson will head into the Jan. 3 speaker vote with just a slim GOP margin of three votes — and is virtually unlikely to get Democratic support.