Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[P@triot]

"Republicans have acknowledged that they do not object to Millet’s credentials — she is an accomplished appellate court lawyer who has argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court — but object to Democratic appointees on the important D.C. federal court. “This vote has nothing to do with this nominee,” Alexander said.

Senate resumes fight over Obama nominees - The Washington Post

Lemar Alexander (R-Nutball) is just one of the many publicans who have made it known the many judicial holds have nothing to do with the nominee.

It's Because: Obama.

Please see the part highlighted above (which you magically managed to miss). The history of Dumbocrat judges (which in itself is appalling - a judge should have no affiliation - they should be 100% impartial).

The history of Dumbocrat judges is appalling. Sotomayor infamously stated "judges make law from the bench" (simply astounding). They spit on the 2nd Amendment (simply unconstitutional). And they conduct themselves as activists from the bench instead of impartial judges (simply unacceptable).

So all he has to do is nominate rational, qualified individuals who don't have a political affiliation or agenda and there is no problem. But why do that when you can just act like Adolf Hitler and grab power for your Dumbocrat Nazi's?

Wow. I can see why so many people call you stupid.

Ah! So in the face of facts you can't dispute, you just resort to immature personal attacks? Got it!

Game. Set. Match.

 

[paperview]

Kinda useless arguing with someone who thinks a judge can't have a party affiliation.

 

[rightwinger]

lol. Longest wait times of any president. Ever.

93 vacancies.

More filibusters during Obama's term than nearly all filibusters of every other president combined.

Hard, sticky facts your side can't worm out of.

Wait - aren't you "progressives"? Aren't you the party of "progress"? Setting new standards and destroying the status quo? Why should those "evil" conservatives who "won't accept change" be held to a different standard? There actions are a progressives wet dream! They are breaking ceilings and setting new standards.

I love when a liberal can't figure out which way is up with their views. They just wake up and if they see an "R" behind a name or a piece of legislation, they are taught to believe it is bad. If they see an "D" behind a name or a piece of legislation, they are taught to believe it is good.

We the people have given those progressives the Political majority.

Those with a R by their names are just unwilling to accept it

 

[JoeB131]

I like the graph better.

I do too - it really illustrates what an unhinged, radical marxist asshole Obama is.

If he would stop nominating unqualified, unhinged radicals and start nominating rational, qualified individuals, none of this would be a problem.

Republicans appointed Brownie the Horse Shoe guy to run FEMA and they appointed Clarance "Uncle" Thomas and Crazy Robert Bork to the SCOTUS.

They really have no business talking about "unqualified" or "unhinged".

 

[paperview]

Republicans have filibustered almost as many of Obama's nominees as all the other presidents combined.

Not even close.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home >

Read the sentence again, chuckie.

Note the bolded above.

You just linked to every cloture vote/ No discerning legislation or nominee there.

And just to help you out there aster...

 

[asterism]

Republicans have filibustered almost as many of Obama's nominees as all the other presidents combined.

Not even close.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home >

Read the sentence again, chuckie.

Note the bolded above.

You just linked to every cloture vote/ No discerning legislation or nominee there.

In those votes are all the nominees that have blocked been. I substantiated my claim while rdean has not.

 

[Contumacious]

Republicans appointed Brownie the Horse Shoe guy to run FEMA and they appointed Clarance "Uncle" Thomas and Crazy Robert Bork to the SCOTUS.

They really have no business talking about "unqualified" or "unhinged".

November 21, 2013 11:05AM

Race Has Nothing to Do with the Judicial Nominations Fight

By Ilya Shapiro

The Congressional Black Caucus has now explicitly attacked Republicans as racist for blocking President Obama’s latest judicial nominees. Not only are they racist, but if you scratch them, you find Confederate gray.

Unbelievable.

Do these elected officials really think that the filibustering of three D.C. Circuit nominees (one of whom is black) has more to do with race than either judicial philosophy or the ongoing battle over whether this underworked court actually needs more judges? Even after Indian-American Sri Srinivasen was confirmed to that same court unanimously in May after Caitlin Halligan (who’s white) was blocked for ideological reasons?

.

 

[paperview]

Not even close.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home >

Read the sentence again, chuckie.

Note the bolded above.

You just linked to every cloture vote/ No discerning legislation or nominee there.

In those votes are all the nominees that have blocked been. I substantiated my claim while rdean has not.

What the fuck?

You didn't even bother looking at your own link.

Click on the highest numbered one there, Cloture Motions - 110th Congress, 139 Motions Filed.

What do we see?
(just a SMALL sample)

• Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act
• Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008
• Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007
• motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment
• Department of Homeland Security Appropriations/Continuing Resolution FY09
• Department of Homeland Security Appropriations/Continuing Resolution FY09
• motion to concur in the House amendment with an amendment
• Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act
• Advancing America's Priorities Act
• National Defense Authorization FY09ReidS
• Energy extenders package
• motion to proceed
• Free Flow of Information Act
• Advancing America's Priorities Act
• Housing and Economic Recov

Those are NOT nominee cloture votes, noodleburger.

 

[paperview]

The graphic is from data by the Congressional Research Service. Good enough source?

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

"In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

Harry Reid on Thursday, November 21st, 2013 in a graphic

Read the article: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

 

[paperview]

Why Harry Reid Had to Use the ‘Nuclear Option’

By JULIET LAPIDOS

J. Scott Applewhite/Associated PressHarry Reid on Nov. 21, 2013.
The Senate voted 52-48 on Thursday to eliminate use of the filibuster on executive and most judicial nominees (not including the Supreme Court).
Here’s why the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, had to force this procedural change.

• One way of measuring the frequency of filibusters is by counting the number of “cloture motions” filed to break a filibuster. When Republicans last controlled the Senate, in the 109th Congress, 68 cloture motions were filed (on all sorts of bills, not just nominees). When Democrats took control, in the 110th, that number went up to 139. It was 137 in the 111th Congress and 115 in the 112th. That’s totally unprecedented. ThinkProgress calculated that “3 in 10 of all cloture motions filed in the history of the Senate were filed during McConnell’s tenure as Minority Leader.”
• Republicans have filibustered a record number of executive-branch nominees. During the presidencies of Eisenhower through Ford, there were zero cloture votes on such nominees. There were two under Carter, two under Reagan, none under the first Bush. Then nine under Clinton and seven under the second Bush. But the current situation’s much worse: There have been 27 cloture votes on President Obama’s executive-branch nominees, including 11 in the last four months.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/why-harry-reid-had-to-use-the-nuclear-option/?_r=0

 

[paperview]

And remember this:

"Earlier this year, for the first time ever, Republicans filibustered a nominee for Secretary of Defense."

Never happened before, in the history of this country.

 

[asterism]

The graphic comes from data from the Congressional Research and it is accurate.

No, the graphic comes from Reid's office.

Why must you lie?

It's wrong because it's counting all votes, even for nominees that had multiple cloture votes. Also, the cloture vote has only been used since 1949 for nominees so the text and set of pictures of all the Presidents is also false.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/838702-crs-filibuster-report.html

Yes, more judges have been blocked this time with the Republicans as the minority party with a Democrat President. The same held true the last time the Democrats were the minority with a Republican President.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*P,;< P

 

[asterism]

lol. Longest wait times of any president. Ever.

93 vacancies.

More filibusters during Obama's term than nearly all filibusters of every other president combined.

Hard, sticky facts your side can't worm out of.

Longest wait times?

That was under Bush:

According to CRS, the average number of days from nomination to confirmation for first-term circuit court nominees -- which include the D.C. Circuit -- was 240.2 for Obama. That was shorter than the 277 days faced by the nominees of George W. Bush. (Obama’s waits were, however, longer than for presidents George H.W. Bush, Reagan and Clinton.)

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says his judicial nominees have faced waits three times as long as George W. Bush's

 

[paperview]

The graphic comes from data from the Congressional Research and it is accurate.

No, the graphic comes from Reid's office.

...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8193081-post349.html

Pay attention to the first line.

 

[asterism]

The graphic is from data by the Congressional Research Service. Good enough source?

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

"In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

Harry Reid on Thursday, November 21st, 2013 in a graphic

Read the article: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

What's unprecedented about it?

32 of Bush's nominees were blocked by the Democrats in just 4 years (2003-2007) and 35 had been blocked before that. So each side uses the procedure more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both parties now have the power to allow a president with a majority senate to appoint lower court judges and executive officers.

That is a good move.

 

[paperview]

lol. Longest wait times of any president. Ever.

93 vacancies.

More filibusters during Obama's term than nearly all filibusters of every other president combined.

Hard, sticky facts your side can't worm out of.

Longest wait times?

That was under Bush:

According to CRS, the average number of days from nomination to confirmation for first-term circuit court nominees -- which include the D.C. Circuit -- was 240.2 for Obama. That was shorter than the 277 days faced by the nominees of George W. Bush. (Obama’s waits were, however, longer than for presidents George H.W. Bush, Reagan and Clinton.)

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says his judicial nominees have faced waits three times as long as George W. Bush's

Did you bother to read that actual story? The one from JULY (there have been more waits in the intervening 5 months)

Still, lets look at that liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal:

The Congressional Research Service released a report in May analyzing the fate of Mr. Obama’s first-term judicial nominees compared to the fates of those nominated by other presidents. A look at the confirmation rates for district court nominees picked by the past four presidents shows a mixed bag: For Mr. Obama, the Senate approved 143 of his 173 nominees; for President George W. Bush, 170 of 179 nominees; for President Bill Clinton, 170 of 198 nominees; and for President George H.W. Bush, 150 of 195 nominees.

For federal appeals court nominees, President George W. Bush saw 35 of his 52 nominees confirmed, and, so far, 30 of Mr. Obama’s 42 nominees have been confirmed. Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all saw significantly higher confirmation rates for their appeals court nominees.

Mr. Obama is also the only one of the five most recent presidents whose average and median waiting time for circuit and district court nominees from confirmation to nomination was more than six months.

Do Obama Nominees Face Stiffer Senate Opposition? - Washington Wire - WSJ

And this:

Forced Obama's judicial nominees to wait over twice as long for confirmation votes as Bush’s nominees did.

Senate Republicans have forced even the nominees whom they ultimately confirm to wait weeks or even months just for up-or-down confirmation vote. Since the Senate requires unanimous consent from its members to hold a vote, a single senator can block a vote indefinitely until he is forced to give up or he runs up against a cloture vote. Under President Obama, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has made extraordinary use of these quiet filibusters, sometimes blocking votes on judicial nominees for months, even when (as is the case the overwhelming majority of the time) no Republicans actually oppose the nominees in question.

One example of this was Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma, nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, who was filibustered for nearly nine months despite the fact that both of his conservative home-state senators said they supported him. When Republicans finally allowed Bacharach’s nomination to come to a vote, he was confirmed unanimously.

President Obama’s confirmed nominees to the lower courts have been forced to wait an average of 107 days between approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee and a confirmation vote on the Senate floor.

At this point in George W. Bush's presidency, the average wait for his nominees was just 43 days. This escalation has been especially pronounced among district court nominees, who have historically been quickly approved for trial court positions.

President Bush’s district court nominees were confirmed in an average of 34 days. Under President Obama, their average wait has nearly tripled to 100 days.

- See more at: The Senate GOP's Unprecedented Obstruction In Five Charts |

 

[paperview]

 

[Trajan]

Read the sentence again, chuckie.

Note the bolded above.

You just linked to every cloture vote/ No discerning legislation or nominee there.

In those votes are all the nominees that have blocked been. I substantiated my claim while rdean has not.

What the fuck?

You didn't even bother looking at your own link.

Click on the highest numbered one there, Cloture Motions - 110th Congress, 139 Motions Filed.

What do we see?
(just a SMALL sample)

• Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act
• Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008
• Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007
• motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment
• Department of Homeland Security Appropriations/Continuing Resolution FY09
• Department of Homeland Security Appropriations/Continuing Resolution FY09
• motion to concur in the House amendment with an amendment
• Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act
• Advancing America's Priorities Act
• National Defense Authorization FY09ReidS
• Energy extenders package
• motion to proceed
• Free Flow of Information Act
• Advancing America's Priorities Act
• Housing and Economic Recov

Those are NOT nominee cloture votes, noodleburger.

do you know what senate rule 19 is, as it applies to amendments to bills etc.?

 

[paperview]

The graphic comes from data from the Congressional Research and it is accurate.

No, the graphic comes from Reid's office.

...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8193081-post349.html

Pay attention to the first line.

For those who are click averse, here's where the numbers came from:

When we asked Reid&#8217;s office for their supporting evidence for the graphic, they pointed us to two documents from the Congressional Research Service, the independent research arm of Congress. Collectively, the two documents list every instance in which a presidential nominee was blocked and cloture was attempted.
Looking over the documents, we found that the numbers were essentially right, but that the way the graphic described them was wrong.


The most recent of the two documents, a CRS memo, said, "In brief, out of the 168 cloture motions ever filed (or reconsidered) on nominations, 82 (49 percent) were cloture motions on nominations made since 2009."


This means that the numbers in the graphic -- 82 presidential nominees blocked under Obama and 86 nominees blocked previously -- were described incorrectly. The figures actually represent the number of cloture attempts that had been made, not the people who were nominated .


This matters because some of the nominations resulted in multiple cloture efforts. By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama&#8217;s term, for a total of 147.
Reid&#8217;s point is actually a bit stronger using these these revised numbers. Using these figures, blockages under Obama actually accounted for more than half of the total, not less then half. Either way, it's disproportionate by historical standards.


Indeed, when we presented this finding to Reid&#8217;s office, they agreed and released an updated version of the graphic. It now reads, "In the history of the United States, there have been 168 filibusters of presidential nominees, 82 filibusters under President Obama, 86 filibusters under all other presidents."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/