More damaging partisanship...federal judges

More damaging partisanship...federal judges (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/10/2016 10:12:53 AM)
How bad has it gotten? Compare the current Senate’s abysmal record with the Democratic-led Senate that President George W. Bush faced in the last two years of his administration. By June 2008, the Senate had approved 46 of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees; they confirmed a total of 68 by September. In contrast, Mr. McConnell’s Senate has confirmed only 20 of Mr. Obama’s judges since Republicans took control in January 2015, the slowest pace since the early 1950s. Appellate judges accounted for just two of those confirmations, fewer than at any time since the 19th century. As a result of the impasse, there are now 83 vacant federal judgeships nationwide — 30 of which have such overwhelming case backlogs that the court system has classified them as judicial emergencies. By comparison, there were only about half as many when the Democrats controlled the Senate in 2008. This disgraceful and destructive behavior extends well beyond the judiciary. The current Senate has approved the fewest civilian nominees by a president in 30 years, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service. One nominee for an ambassadorship died recently after waiting more than two years for a confirmation vote that never came. It is true that both parties manipulate the confirmation process when they are in power, but current Republican leaders have taken it to an extreme. They should not be surprised if, come November, the voters choose representatives who actually do their job. HERE (but only if it is pushed) The above is a disgrace and the dems should be using this all across the country and especially the Garland nomination and in every district and senate seat up for grabs. This is not governing kinkroids.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/12/2016 6:45:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons, why should it matter if that candidate doesn't get confirmed? And, that goes especially for judicial appointees. Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed. While all the above is true, regardless of which party runs the Senate or which party is making the appointment, I doubt Obama's appointees are all not worthy of confirmation. Politics is getting more and more partisan. The D's and R's are moving away from each other (it's not just one party or the other). I doubt it's going to get any better any time soon.

MrRodgers -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/12/2016 7:37:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons, why should it matter if that candidate doesn't get confirmed? And, that goes especially for judicial appointees. Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed. While all the above is true, regardless of which party runs the Senate or which party is making the appointment, I doubt Obama's appointees are all not worthy of confirmation. Politics is getting more and more partisan. The D's and R's are moving away from each other (it's not just one party or the other). I doubt it's going to get any better any time soon. Except the repubs are getting much more partisan then the dems were under Bush and historically and if what you say is the problem, then why no votes ? This is the second OP I've done with the other, where the senate had a voice vote on a proposed floor vote for 17 judges already vetted and voted "out' of committee, just to see the repubs table them. I'd love to see the the dems become at least as partisan and do what they can to hold all of any right or repub judges off the table from now on...not a single vote if they have the power at all. Yes, I fear right wing judges much more so than moderate and left judges.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/12/2016 5:27:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons, why should it matter if that candidate doesn't get confirmed? And, that goes especially for judicial appointees. Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed. While all the above is true, regardless of which party runs the Senate or which party is making the appointment, I doubt Obama's appointees are all not worthy of confirmation. Politics is getting more and more partisan. The D's and R's are moving away from each other (it's not just one party or the other). I doubt it's going to get any better any time soon. Except the repubs are getting much more partisan then the dems were under Bush and historically and if what you say is the problem, then why no votes ? This is the second OP I've done with the other, where the senate had a voice vote on a proposed floor vote for 17 judges already vetted and voted "out' of committee, just to see the repubs table them. I'd love to see the the dems become at least as partisan and do what they can to hold all of any right or repub judges off the table from now on...not a single vote if they have the power at all. Yes, I fear right wing judges much more so than moderate and left judges. Then you're part of the problem, aren't you?

MrRodgers -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/12/2016 6:31:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons, why should it matter if that candidate doesn't get confirmed? And, that goes especially for judicial appointees. Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed. While all the above is true, regardless of which party runs the Senate or which party is making the appointment, I doubt Obama's appointees are all not worthy of confirmation. Politics is getting more and more partisan. The D's and R's are moving away from each other (it's not just one party or the other). I doubt it's going to get any better any time soon. Except the repubs are getting much more partisan then the dems were under Bush and historically and if what you say is the problem, then why no votes ? This is the second OP I've done with the other, where the senate had a voice vote on a proposed floor vote for 17 judges already vetted and voted "out' of committee, just to see the repubs table them. I'd love to see the the dems become at least as partisan and do what they can to hold all of any right or repub judges off the table from now on...not a single vote if they have the power at all. Yes, I fear right wing judges much more so than moderate and left judges. Then you're part of the problem, aren't you? You fight fire...with fire. Plus I don't want today's version of repub judges on the bench.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 10:12:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Then you're part of the problem, aren't you? You fight fire...with fire. Plus I don't want today's version of repub judges on the bench. IOW, yes. Best of luck to you, MrRodgers. Fighting fire with fire is going to get more fire and stronger fire. It's like fighting racism with more racism. It doesn't balance out. It just makes it worse and more divisive.

MrRodgers -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 11:50:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Then you're part of the problem, aren't you? You fight fire...with fire. Plus I don't want today's version of repub judges on the bench. IOW, yes. Best of luck to you, MrRodgers. Fighting fire with fire is going to get more fire and stronger fire. It's like fighting racism with more racism. It doesn't balance out. It just makes it worse and more divisive. Well maybe but given the last 30-40 years since Reagan, I am not hopeful at all. The mere fact that the repubs are not even meeting with or giving a committee hearing to Garland, is enough to put me over the edge. Add to that, that the repubs have vetted many of Obama's judge nominees and simply will not have a floor vote to deny their seating, does more than put me over the edge...but over the top. Actually the expression of fighting fire with fire began with the discovery that it...puts fires out. So your suggestion that one would just get more fire speaks to your very likely corresponding level of cynicism.

Awareness -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 12:59:20 PM)
American Politician (Democratic strategist Jim Manley): https://youtu.be/TYbY45rHj8w?t=2m7s Australian Politician (Former Queensland Premier Rob Borbidge): https://youtu.be/TYbY45rHj8w?t=2m56s Rob Borbidge is a former premier of Queensland who supported the Australian government's gun control legislation and was defeated at the next election as a consequence. What's notable is that gun control was imposed by a conservative government against the wishes of its own constituents because they felt it was the right thing to do. This is the problem that America has. Your politicians are self-serving cunts.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 2:12:36 PM)
quote: This is not governing kinkroids. I agree, however, I do believe that was the intention of the founders, they quite clearly wanted to make it very slow and cumbersome for anything to get accomplished.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 2:13:38 PM)
quote: By June 2008, the Senate had approved 46 of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees; they confirmed a total of 68 by September. In contrast, Mr. McConnell’s Senate has confirmed only 20 of Mr. Obama’s judges Maybe Bush simply nominated more well qualified people than Obama has.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 2:14:47 PM)
quote: Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed. Unless they are biased in the right direction, of course.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 2:16:21 PM)
quote: You fight fire...with fire. No, you do not, that is a recipe for disaster.

MrRodgers -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 4:25:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness American Politician (Democratic strategist Jim Manley): https://youtu.be/TYbY45rHj8w?t=2m7s Australian Politician (Former Queensland Premier Rob Borbidge): https://youtu.be/TYbY45rHj8w?t=2m56s Rob Borbidge is a former premier of Queensland who supported the Australian government's gun control legislation and was defeated at the next election as a consequence. What's notable is that gun control was imposed by a conservative government against the wishes of its own constituents because they felt it was the right thing to do. This is the problem that America has. Your politicians are self-serving cunts. .....and [they] were right. No massacres in over 20 years and a 50% reduction in gun violence.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 4:27:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Actually the expression of fighting fire with fire began with the discovery that it...puts fires out. So your suggestion that one would just get more fire speaks to your very likely corresponding level of cynicism. Right. And, fighting racism with more racism reduces racism? Fighting overspending with more overspending reduces overspending? I know where the adage comes from. Too bad it doesn't always work, though. Congress has no real motive to reduce the partisanship at this time. It works to their re-election benefit. So, yes, we will get more fire in this case.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 4:29:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed. Unless they are biased in the right direction, of course. In reality, that's true, but it shouldn't be.

MrRodgers -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 4:30:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: This is not governing kinkroids. I agree, however, I do believe that was the intention of the founders, they quite clearly wanted to make it very slow and cumbersome for anything to get accomplished. Plus to be objective in so far as the founders were concerned, the lower level courts didn't exist and require so many nominees to be approved.

MrRodgers -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 6:05:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Actually the expression of fighting fire with fire began with the discovery that it...puts fires out. So your suggestion that one would just get more fire speaks to your very likely corresponding level of cynicism. Right. And, fighting racism with more racism reduces racism? Fighting overspending with more overspending reduces overspending? I know where the adage comes from. Too bad it doesn't always work, though. Congress has no real motive to reduce the partisanship at this time. It works to their re-election benefit. So, yes, we will get more fire in this case. Well applying such comparisons (race ?) is all too often a non-sequitur. Let's put it this way. if the repubs can do this to thwart Obama and the dems and the left, then I say the opposite should happen if nothing else, to keep right repub judges off the bench. Plus once you bring up their re-election prospects, the repubs do this as merely as petty, little, power barons, concerned then not with country but only their narrow short term self-interest.

Nnanji -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 7:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons, why should it matter if that candidate doesn't get confirmed? And, that goes especially for judicial appointees. Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed. While all the above is true, regardless of which party runs the Senate or which party is making the appointment, I doubt Obama's appointees are all not worthy of confirmation. Politics is getting more and more partisan. The D's and R's are moving away from each other (it's not just one party or the other). I doubt it's going to get any better any time soon. Except the repubs are getting much more partisan then the dems were under Bush and historically and if what you say is the problem, then why no votes ? This is the second OP I've done with the other, where the senate had a voice vote on a proposed floor vote for 17 judges already vetted and voted "out' of committee, just to see the repubs table them. I'd love to see the the dems become at least as partisan and do what they can to hold all of any right or repub judges off the table from now on...not a single vote if they have the power at all. Yes, I fear right wing judges much more so than moderate and left judges. Biden and Kennedy invented the term "Borked". Don't give me any repugs worse them Dems. Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists while Dems appoint people down for the cause who be live the constitution is a living breathing document...such as a wise Latina who will have a better judgement than a white male.

Nnanji -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 7:34:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Then you're part of the problem, aren't you? You fight fire...with fire. Plus I don't want today's version of repub judges on the bench. IOW, yes. Best of luck to you, MrRodgers. Fighting fire with fire is going to get more fire and stronger fire. It's like fighting racism with more racism. It doesn't balance out. It just makes it worse and more divisive. Well maybe but given the last 30-40 years since Reagan, I am not hopeful at all. The mere fact that the repubs are not even meeting with or giving a committee hearing to Garland, is enough to put me over the edge. Add to that, that the repubs have vetted many of Obama's judge nominees and simply will not have a floor vote to deny their seating, does more than put me over the edge...but over the top. Actually the expression of fighting fire with fire began with the discovery that it...puts fires out. So your suggestion that one would just get more fire speaks to your very likely corresponding level of cynicism. And...the nuclear option when when Reid ran the senate didn't put you over the edge? Truth be discussed, the democrats have never won a policy decision by vote, it's all been by judges on the team. The bad part is that the republicans, with their feathered nests, didn't care until recently when grass root conservatives started pounding it home. So the Dems just got away with it for decades. Now, as Obama's spiritual advisor says, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 7:38:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons... Republicans' opposition to universal healthcare had/has nothing whatsoever to do with any good reason. As a group, I haven't seen them do anything 'for good reason' in ... ages.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875