Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[Trajan]

Conservatives, amazingly, with a straight face, can claim that the way the system should work is that GOP presidents should get to appoint judges when there's a GOP majority in the Senate,

and then, when there isn't, the GOP minority in the Senate should have the power to postpone judicial appointments until they and another Republican president are back in power.

Just when you think rightwing stupidity on this forum may have peaked, they reach another level.

see above ........just when 'leftwing' ignorance has settled.....

 

[Trajan]

Conservatives, amazingly, with a straight face, can claim that the way the system should work is that GOP presidents should get to appoint judges when there's a GOP majority in the Senate,

and then, when there isn't, the GOP minority in the Senate should have the power to postpone judicial appointments until they and another Republican president are back in power.

Just when you think rightwing stupidity on this forum may have peaked, they reach another level.

Can you show me where a conservative made that declaration Carby? If you can, I gladly denounce that statement by a conservative. No? Yeah, didn't think so. But hey, thanks for lying! It helps people new to USMB establish who has no credibility

You do not dispute what he said

Republicans stacked the Washington District Court (second most powerful court in the country ) when they held the presidency. Now, they want to block nominations until they get a Republican president

So, in blocking those three nominations, they lose all 93 vacancies. Seems fair to me

I dispute it and posted a link...you know, information.....try it sometime, like stacking the DC circuit.....

 

[BlindBoo]

Let me rephrase. Taking away the filibuster option from judicial nominations is justified because of the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block them. It is not a power grab by the White House either. The charge that this is somehow Obama's tyranny is ludicrous.

thank you

The use of the fillibuster was also unprecedented during the 108th congress regarding judicial appointment. But back then Reid was staunchly against the nuclear option. So what changed? It certainly wasn't the precedent set on fillibusters, since that was done under the 108th and has escalated since.

So, while we're being hypocritical as a daily routine, can we try being honest for a change?

Let me repeat. Taking away the filibuster option from judicial nominations is justified because of the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block them.

Furthermore, the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations should never have been used in the first place and shame on the Democrats for every putting it into play in 2001.

 

[Trajan]

thank you

The use of the fillibuster was also unprecedented during the 108th congress regarding judicial appointment. But back then Reid was staunchly against the nuclear option. So what changed? It certainly wasn't the precedent set on fillibusters, since that was done under the 108th and has escalated since.

So, while we're being hypocritical as a daily routine, can we try being honest for a change?

Let me repeat. Taking away the filibuster option from judicial nominations is justified because of the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block them.

Furthermore, the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations should never have been used in the first place and shame on the Democrats for every putting it into play in 2001.

let me repeat, a) it is not unprecedented, the dems made it a steady tool in their toolbox when it suited them,


b) just because YOU think something is right, or wrong, doesn't make it so, nor does it make me right or wrong, that why we have LAW(s)...see how that works? Thx for the shoutout ala 2001 but so what? it is here and now, you broke the rules to suit yourselves and there is no excuse for that, just as there would have been no excuse if Frist had done it either...


c) what happened to "elections count", if you guys had not lost your senate seats when you had 60, you could have confirmed anyone you wanted too.... you wanna walk back that coined phrase too?

 

[BlindBoo]

Let me rephrase. Taking away the filibuster option from judicial nominations is justified because of the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block them. It is not a power grab by the White House either. The charge that this is somehow Obama's tyranny is ludicrous.

thank you

Folks, I rest my case.....

Here we have an ignorant Dumbocrat claiming that a Senator should lose the authority of his position for properly exercising the authority of his position. You can't make this stuff up folks!

And, lets not forget to point out the irony of Dumbocrat contradiction. Above [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] we have a liberal jack-ass complaining about "unprecedented" use. Uh....wait....aren't you people the "progressives" who crow about "progress" and complain about the status quo? So a Senator being progressive and setting new standards and precedence is suddenly "evil" and you want to change the rules because they didn't maintain status quo you claim to hate?!?!?

You people can't even create a consistent narrative for your platform. You're a bunch of dumb monkey's hoping from one foot to the next trying to justify how you contradicted yourselves in your last statement...

Now come stupid, quick, give us a new narrative to cover up the glaring contradictions in your previous narrative!

The unprecedented use started in 2001, by the Democrats (not all Democrats supported this tactic of course). Now neither side will be able to use it.

You're such a drama queen.

 

[TooTall]

Another mountain being built from a conservative molehill

Funny thing RW - it's the dirt-bag, Chicago-style, corrupt politics by the Dumbocrats which keeps creating the "molehills" that us conservatives are (according to you) "turning into mountains".

You know the solution to that problem RW? If you party would show some integrity for once in their entire miserable existance and stop with the thuggery, there would be no molehill and thus, no mountain to create out of it! Imagine that!

But hey - you guys never were one's to employ personal responsibility! So why start now, right? So much easier to cause the problem (like you Dumbocrats always do) and then blame the other guy for the problem you caused.

Tell us about Benghazi and Fast and Furious again

Voters can't wait to hear

Voters aren't allowed to know about Fast and Furious. Obama gave Holder Executive Privelege so he doesn't have to answer any questions and he stonewalled Congress by withholding germane documents.

Hillary is gone before they could ask her more than a few questions. All she had to say was it didn't really matter that four Americans were killed.

 

[rightwinger]

thank you

The use of the fillibuster was also unprecedented during the 108th congress regarding judicial appointment. But back then Reid was staunchly against the nuclear option. So what changed? It certainly wasn't the precedent set on fillibusters, since that was done under the 108th and has escalated since.

So, while we're being hypocritical as a daily routine, can we try being honest for a change?

Let me repeat. Taking away the filibuster option from judicial nominations is justified because of the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block them.

Furthermore, the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations should never have been used in the first place and shame on the Democrats for every putting it into play in 2001.

Filibuster was a quaint Senate custom requiring holding the floor of the Senate nonstop.
Then it evolved to where you didn't have to actually talk, you just had to declare a filibuster
Then it evolved to where EVERY bill and appointment required 60 votes
It has now evolved to where you only need 51 votes for appointments
We need to evolve once again to end filibuster forever

 

[NYcarbineer]

[c) what happened to "elections count", if you guys had not lost your senate seats when you had 60, you could have confirmed anyone you wanted too.... you wanna walk back that coined phrase too?

How about counting the election where the GOP lost its majority in the Senate?

 

[BlindBoo]

The use of the fillibuster was also unprecedented during the 108th congress regarding judicial appointment. But back then Reid was staunchly against the nuclear option. So what changed? It certainly wasn't the precedent set on fillibusters, since that was done under the 108th and has escalated since.

So, while we're being hypocritical as a daily routine, can we try being honest for a change?

Let me repeat. Taking away the filibuster option from judicial nominations is justified because of the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block them.

Furthermore, the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations should never have been used in the first place and shame on the Democrats for every putting it into play in 2001.

let me repeat, a) it is not unprecedented, the dems made it a steady tool in their toolbox when it suited them,


b) just because YOU think something is right, or wrong, doesn't make it so, nor does it make me right or wrong, that why we have LAW(s)...see how that works? Thx for the shoutout ala 2001 but so what? it is here and now, you broke the rules to suit yourselves and there is no excuse for that, just as there would have been no excuse if Frist had done it either...


c) what happened to "elections count", if you guys had not lost your senate seats when you had 60, you could have confirmed anyone you wanted too.... you wanna walk back that coined phrase too?

a) I never specifically blamed either side for starting this tactic did I? So since the Democrats started the heretofore unused tactic, thereby setting the new precedent, doesn't that imply I'm blaming the Democrats?

b) I would have been fine with it if Frist changed the rule back when it started.

c) Between Al Franken not getting seated for 7 months, Senator Byrd getting hospitalized , and Senator Kennedy dying, the Democrats only had a 60 vote margin for a few weeks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives, amazingly, with a straight face, can claim that the way the system should work is that GOP presidents should get to appoint judges when there's a GOP majority in the Senate,

and then, when there isn't, the GOP minority in the Senate should have the power to postpone judicial appointments until they and another Republican president are back in power.

Just when you think rightwing stupidity on this forum may have peaked, they reach another level.

Can you show me where a conservative made that declaration Carby? If you can, I gladly denounce that statement by a conservative. No? Yeah, didn't think so. But hey, thanks for lying! It helps people new to USMB establish who has no credibility

You. Your posts make it very clear that you did not want Obama to get any of his judicial appointments approved.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let me repeat. Taking away the filibuster option from judicial nominations is justified because of the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block them.

Furthermore, the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations should never have been used in the first place and shame on the Democrats for every putting it into play in 2001.

let me repeat, a) it is not unprecedented, the dems made it a steady tool in their toolbox when it suited them,


b) just because YOU think something is right, or wrong, doesn't make it so, nor does it make me right or wrong, that why we have LAW(s)...see how that works? Thx for the shoutout ala 2001 but so what? it is here and now, you broke the rules to suit yourselves and there is no excuse for that, just as there would have been no excuse if Frist had done it either...


c) what happened to "elections count", if you guys had not lost your senate seats when you had 60, you could have confirmed anyone you wanted too.... you wanna walk back that coined phrase too?

a) I never specifically blamed either side for starting this tactic did I? So since the Democrats started the heretofore unused tactic, thereby setting the new precedent, doesn't that imply I'm blaming the Democrats?

b) I would have been fine with it if Frist changed the rule back when it started.

c) Between Al Franken not getting seated for 7 months, Senator Byrd getting hospitalized , and Senator Kennedy dying, the Democrats only had a 60 vote margin for a few weeks.

a) Liberals like you were lamenting such a tactic when the Republicans held the majority in both houses. As Trajan said, it's nothing but a tool for when it suits you.

b) As I recall, liberals like you also excoriated Bill Frist when he proposed the nuclear option. So as luck would have it, it now benefits you for the moment. That, Boo, is hypocritical

c) For almost 20 weeks Democrats held a 60 vote supermajority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives, amazingly, with a straight face, can claim that the way the system should work is that GOP presidents should get to appoint judges when there's a GOP majority in the Senate,

and then, when there isn't, the GOP minority in the Senate should have the power to postpone judicial appointments until they and another Republican president are back in power.

Just when you think rightwing stupidity on this forum may have peaked, they reach another level.

see above ........just when 'leftwing' ignorance has settled.....

So your position is that no judges should get appointed unless the President's party has 60 Senators.

That's almost as ignorant.

Are you aware that the Republican Party has not had 60 Senators since the 1920's?

 

[Trajan]

let me repeat, a) it is not unprecedented, the dems made it a steady tool in their toolbox when it suited them,


b) just because YOU think something is right, or wrong, doesn't make it so, nor does it make me right or wrong, that why we have LAW(s)...see how that works? Thx for the shoutout ala 2001 but so what? it is here and now, you broke the rules to suit yourselves and there is no excuse for that, just as there would have been no excuse if Frist had done it either...


c) what happened to "elections count", if you guys had not lost your senate seats when you had 60, you could have confirmed anyone you wanted too.... you wanna walk back that coined phrase too?

a) I never specifically blamed either side for starting this tactic did I? So since the Democrats started the heretofore unused tactic, thereby setting the new precedent, doesn't that imply I'm blaming the Democrats?

b) I would have been fine with it if Frist changed the rule back when it started.

c) Between Al Franken not getting seated for 7 months, Senator Byrd getting hospitalized , and Senator Kennedy dying, the Democrats only had a 60 vote margin for a few weeks.

a) Liberals like you were lamenting such a tactic when the Republicans held the majority in both houses. As Trajan said, it's nothing but a tool for when it suits you.

b) As I recall, liberals like you also excoriated Bill Frist when he proposed the nuclear option. So as luck would have it, it now benefits you for the moment. That, Boo, is hypocritical

c) For almost 20 weeks Democrats held a 60 vote supermajority.

thank you, yes, they got it in june ( edit- July 7th) I believe, which lasted thru browns swearing in in Jan (?) 2010.

 

[Trajan]

Let me repeat. Taking away the filibuster option from judicial nominations is justified because of the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block them.

Furthermore, the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations should never have been used in the first place and shame on the Democrats for every putting it into play in 2001.

let me repeat, a) it is not unprecedented, the dems made it a steady tool in their toolbox when it suited them,


b) just because YOU think something is right, or wrong, doesn't make it so, nor does it make me right or wrong, that why we have LAW(s)...see how that works? Thx for the shoutout ala 2001 but so what? it is here and now, you broke the rules to suit yourselves and there is no excuse for that, just as there would have been no excuse if Frist had done it either...


c) what happened to "elections count", if you guys had not lost your senate seats when you had 60, you could have confirmed anyone you wanted too.... you wanna walk back that coined phrase too?

a) I never specifically blamed either side for starting this tactic did I? So since the Democrats started the heretofore unused tactic, thereby setting the new precedent, doesn't that imply I'm blaming the Democrats?

yes you're right, I apologize, without reservation....that was intended for the 'others' at large but I should have addressed it directly to them, my bad.

b) I would have been fine with it if Frist changed the rule back when it started.

no, I remember this clearly and as some folks here who knew me at the last place we were at before usmb then, can attest, I said no then too, the senate is NOT the house, and the temptation to use it on legislature and SC nominees would have been to great.

Oh and and on a related note I'll restate my position on "Holds" ; they are BS, some senator can just decide to hold up a nominee to extort information, whatever from the exec. is a no go for me, like Graham was(is) trying to do with Benghazi.

c) Between Al Franken not getting seated for 7 months, Senator Byrd getting hospitalized , and Senator Kennedy dying, the Democrats only had a 60 vote margin for a few weeks.

I am sorry but thats not correct, first week of july

 

[francoHFW]

[The point is - your smug attitude is deranged considering recent history. *If* the next election turns out like the 2010 mid-terms, I can't wait to see all of your smug faces as you realize you pulled the only tool available to you to ensure your precious little marxism and government table scraps...

And if the reverse happens, we won't be able to do the same to you.

First of all, I'm not the smug one declaring future victories. Second, it was not my side of the aisle that that changed the rules to esnure there was no dissent. So no, you will not be able to say the same to me.

Why? Because you'll act like you did in 2012. That is, you'll piss yourself and vanish for a couple months.

Most of the Republicans here did the same. Not really their fault. After all, if someone has functioning gonads, they become Democrats.

So you consider someone who can't stand on their own two feet and must be a dependent of the state like a fuck'n child to be someone with "functioning gonads"? Hmm...interesting.

I always find the Dumbocrat narrative to be fall down hilarious. These are the people who FEAR guns. These are the people who FEAR war (they've cried for 10 years like little bitches about Afghanistan and Iraq and barely a damn one of them has the courage to serve - the military is overwhelmingly conservative). These are the people who FEAR living without government safety nets. These are the people who FEAR starting their own business. These are the people who FEAR standing on their own two feet like adults (they want governments help and government entitlements to live). And yet, when sitting behind a keyboard protected by the internet, they are suddenly internet "tough guys" with "functioning gonads"

Sorry dude - you're afraid to even get a job and survive on your own with government cheese and government provided healthcare. You have NO grounds to stand on when it comes to having balls and being a real man. Cute fictional narrative though!

Oh, do keep up your crazy 'tard conspiracy lies that the Democrats rig elections. Crybaby lying on that scale wins votes for the Democrats, since no one wants to be associated with loser liars like you. Non-losers don't have to constantly fabricate excuses for losing.

Another personal favorite of mine from the left! For 5 years now, they've been declaring that everything I do sends voters their way. How odd that they don't have 100% of the vote by now...

Psst...mamooth...I'm going to let you in on a little secret here....shhh...this is just between me and you - ok?

If you are a spineless, sniveling little coward with no balls and are too lazy to provide for yourself, you vote Dumbocrat. If you are a real American who embraces personal responsibility, freedom, and opportunity, you vote Republican.

Absolutely, positively nothing alters that. Nothing anyone says. Nothing anyone does. Nothing anyone advertises or pitches. You either want to live life as a government dependent parasite or you do not want to live life as a government dependent parasite. It really is that simple.

Now quick - declare that this post just took 100,000 conservatives and 500,000 "independents" and made them Dumbocrat voters!

NOT so simple....There's also the brainwashed hater dingbats who believe people actually WANT to be parasites...LOL
SEE SIG PARA. 1...

 

[P@triot]

thank you

Folks, I rest my case.....

Here we have an ignorant Dumbocrat claiming that a Senator should lose the authority of his position for properly exercising the authority of his position. You can't make this stuff up folks!

And, lets not forget to point out the irony of Dumbocrat contradiction. Above [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] we have a liberal jack-ass complaining about "unprecedented" use. Uh....wait....aren't you people the "progressives" who crow about "progress" and complain about the status quo? So a Senator being progressive and setting new standards and precedence is suddenly "evil" and you want to change the rules because they didn't maintain status quo you claim to hate?!?!?

You people can't even create a consistent narrative for your platform. You're a bunch of dumb monkey's hoping from one foot to the next trying to justify how you contradicted yourselves in your last statement...

Now come stupid, quick, give us a new narrative to cover up the glaring contradictions in your previous narrative!

The unprecedented use started in 2001, by the Democrats (not all Democrats supported this tactic of course). Now neither side will be able to use it.

You're such a drama queen.

Wow! First your narrative was that this measure was necessary because of the "unprecedented use" since Obama took office. But now you're saying the Dumbocrats were doing this 12 years ago! Which means nothing about the Republicans recent usage was "unprecedented" which means your entire argument for supporting this is irrational!

Would you like to try a third time to create a narrative that you think you can make stick [MENTION=25197]BlindBoo[/MENTION]?

(Watching Dumbocrats hop from one leg to the other trying to tweak their official narrative is priceless. It's so much easier libs if you simply keep a consistent position and properly criticize your leaders when appropriate! But hey, give the Dumbocrat leaders credit - they really know how to create a legion of blind little soldiers)

 

[Trajan]

[c) what happened to "elections count", if you guys had not lost your senate seats when you had 60, you could have confirmed anyone you wanted too.... you wanna walk back that coined phrase too?

How about counting the election where the GOP lost its majority in the Senate?

critical thinking fail or do you need more ice?

the limit was 60 to close debate and 67 to change rules.....

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives, amazingly, with a straight face, can claim that the way the system should work is that GOP presidents should get to appoint judges when there's a GOP majority in the Senate,

and then, when there isn't, the GOP minority in the Senate should have the power to postpone judicial appointments until they and another Republican president are back in power.

Just when you think rightwing stupidity on this forum may have peaked, they reach another level.

see above ........just when 'leftwing' ignorance has settled.....

So your position is that no judges should get appointed unless the President's party has 60 Senators.

That's almost as ignorant.

Are you aware that the Republican Party has not had 60 Senators since the 1920's?

No stupid - the position is the president should simply nominate a rational, qualified individual instead of a partisan hack!!! And then both sides would approve with the proper votes.

You see how that works, stupid?!?

 

[Trajan]

Conservatives, amazingly, with a straight face, can claim that the way the system should work is that GOP presidents should get to appoint judges when there's a GOP majority in the Senate,

and then, when there isn't, the GOP minority in the Senate should have the power to postpone judicial appointments until they and another Republican president are back in power.

Just when you think rightwing stupidity on this forum may have peaked, they reach another level.

see above ........just when 'leftwing' ignorance has settled.....

So your position is that no judges should get appointed unless the President's party has 60 Senators.

That's almost as ignorant.

Are you aware that the Republican Party has not had 60 Senators since the 1920's?

you are suffering a critical thinking fail, first if you guys had not started this shooting war we wouldn't be here.

my position is not germane in this context; the rule was 60 to close debate, if that means debate on a nominee, well, that was the rule. You guys and obama too, screamed like we are now back in 05 when Frist surfaced this shit, so please spare me the BS.

and you must have missed this;

just because YOU think something is right, or wrong, doesn't make it so, nor does it make me right or wrong, thats why we have LAW(s)...see how that works?



and, I don't need a lesson in house or senate history from you of all people.



LBJ had a filibuster ( under the old rules to- 3/5ths) when he introduced Medicare....but what did he do? he worked his ass of for consensus, and he had a huuuge house majority too.....what do we have? might makes right...zero for obamacare and reid deciding hes got to have all the power, by breaking a 200 year dictum submaring the minority...



man, you proggies sure do love monitories except when you need to kick them in the teeth to forward an ideological platform. what happened to the love?

 

[NYcarbineer]

see above ........just when 'leftwing' ignorance has settled.....

So your position is that no judges should get appointed unless the President's party has 60 Senators.

That's almost as ignorant.

Are you aware that the Republican Party has not had 60 Senators since the 1920's?

No stupid - the position is the president should simply nominate a rational, qualified individual instead of a partisan hack!!! And then both sides would approve with the proper votes.

You see how that works, stupid?!?

That doesn't make any sense. Was that your intention? If so, well done.