Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[Political Junky]

Mitch could have let Obama have 3 judges, now he can have 93 with just Democratic votes .. dumb move. <my comment.

Daily Kos: Senate GOP blows itself up. What the hell were they thinking?

True, today's deal preserved the existing filibuster rule, but it really didn't. Democrats established that they could bust through any filibuster with a simple majority anytime they wanted. Sure, it's still a process to do so, full of blustery threats and hyperbolic doomsaying, but it's a process [...]
But if Republicans continue to prevent up-or-down votes on further administration officials, or perhaps more importantly, judicial ones, Democrats now have a tool to force action. And that means we've come a long way from a few years ago, when Senate Democrats simply shrugged at the inevitability of the GOP filibuster arguing they had no other option.

I must admit, I didn't expect Republicans to challenge this notion this quickly. And the reason is simple: Even with a truncated and compromised filibuster, Republicans were able to gum up the works to unprecedented levels. As Bill Sher at the Campaign for America's Future notes, the federal judiciary is now evenly balanced, with 390 GOP-appointed judges and 391 Democratic-appointed ones. However, there are 93 vacancies.
<more>

 

[tyroneweaver]

I know idaho has been asking for additional federal judge.
maybe it's a good idea to back off that now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mitch could have let Obama have 3 judges, now he can have 93 with just Democratic votes .. dumb move

That's why the minority must compromise or get kicked in the metaphorical balls.

 

[BDBoop]

Mitch could have let Obama have 3 judges, now he can have 93 with just Democratic votes .. dumb move. <my comment.

Daily Kos: Senate GOP blows itself up. What the hell were they thinking?

True, today's deal preserved the existing filibuster rule, but it really didn't. Democrats established that they could bust through any filibuster with a simple majority anytime they wanted. Sure, it's still a process to do so, full of blustery threats and hyperbolic doomsaying, but it's a process [...]
But if Republicans continue to prevent up-or-down votes on further administration officials, or perhaps more importantly, judicial ones, Democrats now have a tool to force action. And that means we've come a long way from a few years ago, when Senate Democrats simply shrugged at the inevitability of the GOP filibuster arguing they had no other option.

I must admit, I didn't expect Republicans to challenge this notion this quickly. And the reason is simple: Even with a truncated and compromised filibuster, Republicans were able to gum up the works to unprecedented levels. As Bill Sher at the Campaign for America's Future notes, the federal judiciary is now evenly balanced, with 390 GOP-appointed judges and 391 Democratic-appointed ones. However, there are 93 vacancies.
<more>

I read that earlier. My reaction to 'what were they thinking' was 'they weren't.'

 

[asterism]

When the GOP retakes the Senate (there's a good chance they will next year) this is going to be hilarious.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is possible, Asterism, not a given, and, yes, if so, listen to the Dems scream.

 

[Katzndogz]

Next year when the GOP takes the senate they can do the same thing.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Obama just committed an unprecedented tyranny.

This represents a ridiculous power grab from one of the most tyrannical administrations in US History.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Yet another thread on this topic was called for because?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right here loves to yell as loud as the far left.

They are only hearing damaged on one side of their head while us in the left of center to the right of center have hearing loss on both sides.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama just committed an unprecedented tyranny.

This represents a ridiculous power grab from one of the most tyrannical administrations in US History.

Let me ask you a question:

If the party in power in both the presidency and the Senate should not have the right to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

Please be specific and explain your reasoning in detail.

 

[HenryBHough]

Let the political show trials begin!

But will The UN intervene? Send in "peace keepers"?

They may need to do just that or perhaps move to Beijing.

 

[asterism]

Obama just committed an unprecedented tyranny.

This represents a ridiculous power grab from one of the most tyrannical administrations in US History.

Let me ask you a question:

If the party in power in both the presidency and the Senate should not have the right to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

Please be specific and explain your reasoning in detail.

Good question.

Why the blocks when it was Bush and the Republicans trying to fill seats?

 

[Political Junky]

Charts: Look At How Badly Obama Lags on Judicial Appointments | Mother Jones

 

[Politico]

Mitch could have let Obama have 3 judges, now he can have 93 with just Democratic votes .. dumb move. <my comment.

Daily Kos: Senate GOP blows itself up. What the hell were they thinking?

True, today's deal preserved the existing filibuster rule, but it really didn't. Democrats established that they could bust through any filibuster with a simple majority anytime they wanted. Sure, it's still a process to do so, full of blustery threats and hyperbolic doomsaying, but it's a process [...]
But if Republicans continue to prevent up-or-down votes on further administration officials, or perhaps more importantly, judicial ones, Democrats now have a tool to force action. And that means we've come a long way from a few years ago, when Senate Democrats simply shrugged at the inevitability of the GOP filibuster arguing they had no other option.

I must admit, I didn't expect Republicans to challenge this notion this quickly. And the reason is simple: Even with a truncated and compromised filibuster, Republicans were able to gum up the works to unprecedented levels. As Bill Sher at the Campaign for America's Future notes, the federal judiciary is now evenly balanced, with 390 GOP-appointed judges and 391 Democratic-appointed ones. However, there are 93 vacancies.
<more>

I read that earlier. My reaction to 'what were they thinking' was 'they weren't.'

At least you admitted it.

 

[eagle1462010]

The GOP screwed up and let that Commie Reid get away with a procedural BS power move.............

The Dems used this rule over and over again with Bush trying to appoint Judges, yet change the way business is done on Senate Rules for themselves. Ultimate goal to appoint as many Judges as possible while Obama the Commie is in power.

McConnell is an Incompetent dupe. Needs to be fired.

 

[Clementine]

I guess they didn't think Dems would use the nuclear option considering the major shit fit they had when it came up. I didn't like the idea of the Republicans doing that and I damn sure don't like this regime doing this.

The worst part of Obama's choices for federal judges is that they'll be radical lefties intent on rewriting the constitution and otherwise legislating from the bench.

A good judge would not have party affiliation or be too far left or right and would simply uphold the law.

 

[eagle1462010]

I guess they didn't think Dems would use the nuclear option considering the major shit fit they had when it came up. I didn't like the idea of the Republicans doing that and I damn sure don't like this regime doing this.

The worst part of Obama's choices for federal judges is that they'll be radical lefties intent on rewriting the constitution and otherwise legislating from the bench.

A good judge would not have party affiliation or be too far left or right and would simply uphold the law.

I love your Avatar. Says it all, and your post is spot on. They will go to any lengths to grab as much power as possible, which is what this whole thing is about.

They used the 2/3rd's rule repeatedly trying to stop appointments by Bush.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, just because Obama doesn't get to appoint the judges he wants allows him and his party to justify throwing 225 years of legislative history in the trash? Oh well, this will bite them in the ass. Democrats in Washington are notorious for not thinking things through, i.e. Obamacare.

 

[eagle1462010]

So, just because Obama doesn't get to appoint the judges he wants allows him and his party to justify throwing 225 years of legislative history in the trash? Oh well, this will bite them in the ass. Democrats in Washington are notorious for not thinking things through, i.e. Obamacare.

Actually, they know exactly what they are doing. Getting as much power as they can before they are kicked to the curb...........Which eventually they will be..............

This has happened before in our history. They were so hated at one point because of their policies that they started calling themselves Liberals instead of Progressives. Now they tend to call themselves Progressives as Liberal becomes the bad word. It just hasn't gotten to the point that the people realize the left's ultimate goals yet. The people in this country are not so well informed, and IGNORANCE IS BLISS TO THE STATIST MACHINE.