PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Laid on the table. See S. 1328 for further action. (consideration: CR H13364)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 19, 1995
Amends the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 to provide that the first vacancy in the office of district judge occurring in the western district of Michigan after December 1, 1995, or in each of other specified judicial districts five years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill a temporary judgeship created by such Act, shall not be filled.
People & committees
Rep. Moorhead, Carlos J. [R-CA-27] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Laid on the table. See S. 1328 for further action. (consideration: CR H13364)
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H13362-13363)
Mr. Moorhead moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 179.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-334.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-334.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2361 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2361 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2361 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2361 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.