Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[rightwinger]

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.

So I guess you agree ending filibuster of nominees is warranted

 

[paperview]

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.?

What does that have to do with aster linking to ALL cloture motions ever, including legislation, to which he/she assigned to nominee cloture votes?

Furthermore, Senate Rule 19 states: “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”

Did you really mean to type that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know that you nitwit, the POINT is in his gaining consensus from the gop, when he didn't need them.... I know he had huge majorities...I said that, wtf are you hallucinating

Hey, enough about me. Let's talk about you for a bit, as in this bit:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/4627441-post368.html

where you proclaim your long held opposition to the filibustering of judicial appointments.

Funny thing about messageboards. They actually record what people say, and save it.

and???????????

I don't sppt. them for anyone, but, I do sppt. the rules, you cannot figure that out?

nor do I sppt. 'Holds' on nominees etc. gee I must have said this, what 10 times? I'll say it tomorrow again if you like.... did you catch the part about elections

So you're ranting against a policy you actually support?

lol, talk about partisan hackery.

 

[paperview]

Hey, enough about me. Let's talk about you for a bit, as in this bit:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/4627441-post368.html

where you proclaim your long held opposition to the filibustering of judicial appointments.

Funny thing about messageboards. They actually record what people say, and save it.

and???????????

I don't sppt. them for anyone, but, I do sppt. the rules, you cannot figure that out?

nor do I sppt. 'Holds' on nominees etc. gee I must have said this, what 10 times? I'll say it tomorrow again if you like.... did you catch the part about elections

So you're ranting against a policy you actually support?

lol, talk about partisan hackery.

lol

This is what makes reading these boards such a joy.

 

[1776]

Democraps know they are fucked in the coming elections and their experiment is ready to implode so now they are doing a scorched Earth policy with this bullshit.

They can only affect society with their judges making up bullshit from the bench because Americans in the end always reject their liberal laws (see obamacare). Now they need to put more socialist judges in the system to block lawsuits from common Americans to overturn obamacare and other welfare programs.

This is what socialists do...they rig the system to stop any counter voice in society and force their views down your throat.

 

[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.

So I guess you agree ending filibuster of nominees is warranted

Of course. The Senate gets to set their own rules. Right now the Democrats have the majority so they can do what they want. We all know how much the very same Democrats howled like monkeys when the Republicans threatened to do the same thing, but the GOP will get the last laugh on this.

 

[asterism]

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.?

What does that have to do with aster linking to ALL cloture motions ever, including legislation, to which he/she assigned to nominee cloture votes?

Furthermore, Senate Rule 19 states: “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”

Did you really mean to type that?

rderp rarely uses links that are comprehensive so I challenged him.

I have been corrected by you on the larger point of total nominees, and I provided data that shows the talking point to be incorrect.

 

[paperview]

I provided data that shows the talking point to be incorrect.

No, you haven't.

 

[Dot Com]

and???????????

I don't sppt. them for anyone, but, I do sppt. the rules, you cannot figure that out?

nor do I sppt. 'Holds' on nominees etc. gee I must have said this, what 10 times? I'll say it tomorrow again if you like.... did you catch the part about elections

So you're ranting against a policy you actually support?

lol, talk about partisan hackery.

lol

This is what makes reading these boards such a joy.

yep

 

[asterism]

I provided data that shows the talking point to be incorrect.

No, you haven't.

Yes I did, it's in the Senate cloture link I posted. The Politifact link you provided agrees:

By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term

So why does the graphic say 86 and 82?

 

[paperview]

I provided data that shows the talking point to be incorrect.

No, you haven't.

Yes I did, it's in the Senate cloture link I posted. The Politifact link you provided agrees:

By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term

So why does the graphic say 86 and 82?

Man. What is your freaking problem with reading a page?

I already even brought it here and underlined it for you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8193197-post360.html

Your snippity snip job doesn't fly.

READ THE DAMN THING.

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

Quote:

When we asked Reid’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’s term, for a total of 147.

Reid’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’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/

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...a Senator should lose the authority of his position for properly exercising the authority of his position.

... 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?!?!?

...

"authority of his position for properly exercising the authority of position" - English please!

Dante has consistently attacked progressivism so what script is this loser speaking from?

As usual, rightwingers read and hear things and turn it into what they wanted to read/hear. After establishing in their warped minds, that it fits a wingnutty narrative, they then use prepared responses (to a receptive audience of each other) regardless of the content they are responding to, to knock down their strawmen and pull in their red herrings.

 

[asterism]

No, you haven't.

Yes I did, it's in the Senate cloture link I posted. The Politifact link you provided agrees:

So why does the graphic say 86 and 82?

Man. What is your freaking problem with reading a page?

I already even brought it here and underlined it for you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8193197-post360.html

Your snippity snip job doesn't fly.

READ THE DAMN THING.

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

Quote:

When we asked Reid’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’s term, for a total of 147.

Reid’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’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/

It seems you don't think the data for cloture votes on nominees is contained in a listing of all cloture votes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

making things easier...


a public service brought to usmb by Dante Inc., leveler of playing fields

Late 60w, early into Nixon's first term, Abe Fortas vacancy

Richard Nixon throws away precedent for nominating qualified candidates for SCOTUS and brings ideological nominees starting with Clement Haynsworth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eventually a few GOP leaders and members follow Ted Kennedy's lead and vote against this shithead tactic (Kennedy later led charged against the ideologue's ideologue" Bork)

Haynsworth's nomination was defeated by a vote of 55 to 45 on November 21, 1969. 19 Democrats and 26 Republicans voted for Haynsworth while 38 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted against the nomination. Haynsworth was the first Supreme Court nominee to be defeated by the Senate since the rejection of Judge John J. Parker (also of the Fourth Circuit) in 1930. - Clement Haynsworth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

most of the rightwingers here and many of the others have no sense of history or current events

Advise and Consent and how it works

poor stepback is deluded into thinking it is irrelevant to the op

In defense of conservatives Judges...

G. Harrold Carswell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : "I believe that segregation of the races is proper...I yield to no man in the firm, vigorous belief in the principles of white supremacy."

In defense against charges that Carswell was "mediocre", U.S. Senator Roman Hruska, a Nebraska Republican, stated:

"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."

 

[paperview]

Yes I did, it's in the Senate cloture link I posted. The Politifact link you provided agrees:

So why does the graphic say 86 and 82?

Man. What is your freaking problem with reading a page?

I already even brought it here and underlined it for you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8193197-post360.html

Your snippity snip job doesn't fly.

READ THE DAMN THING.

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

Quote:

When we asked Reid’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’s term, for a total of 147.

Reid’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’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/

It seems you don't think the data for cloture votes on nominees is contained in a listing of all cloture votes.

It seems your posts make less and less sense with each attempted riposte.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Riiiiight... thats what harry reid told the wash post, his position vis a vis 2005 had evolved, he got that slimy opportunistic horsecrap from obamas stance on gay marriage


do you know why there are so many filibusters on judges and on legislation?

2005 is not 2013

Filibuster has gotten out of hand and 60 votes should not be required for the Senate to do business. The Senate is gridlocked and nothing can be accomplished. The filibuster is to blame

End the archaic practice

Remember that argument when the Republicans repeal Obamacare with 51 votes.

 

[paperview]

Riiiiight... thats what harry reid told the wash post, his position vis a vis 2005 had evolved, he got that slimy opportunistic horsecrap from obamas stance on gay marriage


do you know why there are so many filibusters on judges and on legislation?

2005 is not 2013

Filibuster has gotten out of hand and 60 votes should not be required for the Senate to do business. The Senate is gridlocked and nothing can be accomplished. The filibuster is to blame

End the archaic practice

Remember that argument when the Republicans repeal Obamacare with 51 votes.

And when is the soonest you envision this happening?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

2005 is not 2013

Filibuster has gotten out of hand and 60 votes should not be required for the Senate to do business. The Senate is gridlocked and nothing can be accomplished. The filibuster is to blame

End the archaic practice

Remember that argument when the Republicans repeal Obamacare with 51 votes.

And when is the soonest you envision this happening?

My ability to envision it is irrelevant, I just want all the drooling idiots that think making things worse is a good thing to remember their arguments.

 

[paperview]

Remember that argument when the Republicans repeal Obamacare with 51 votes.

And when is the soonest you envision this happening?

My ability to envision it is irrelevant, I just want all the drooling idiots that think making things worse is a good thing to remember their arguments.

I guess typing "at the earliest, 2017" was a little too painful, eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's an 'oh yeah I remember that now' moment for some of you:

Remember back when the GOP had the majority in the Senate, and talk of the 'nuclear option' came up?

Remember what the conservatives - fancying themselves quite clever - came up with as the alternative name for the 'nuclear option'?

The 'constitutional option'.

...lol, oh yeah, now you remember...