Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama just committed an unprecedented tyranny.
This represents a ridiculous power grab from one of the most tyrannical administrations in US History.
lol.Wow. Holy shit.
Way to show you haven't been paying attention to this thing AT ALL.
Wow. Just wow.
Then you should have no problem providing a list of names.
Don't blame me if, once you go looking, you find out that I have been paying attention.
You couldn't have to make such an absurd claim.
"Four of my five nominees to this court have been obstructed. When it comes to judicial nominations, I am fulfilling my constitutional responsibility, but Congress is not." Blocking Wilkins nomination prompted immediate calls from some Democrats to change Senate rules to make it harder for the minority party to block nominations. Several said they had grown frustrated by GOP efforts to stop Obama's nominees.
On the Senate floor, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said blocking nominees like Wilkins could inspire Democrats to consider limiting debate on Obama's nominations.
"This kind of delay for the sake of delay, this kind of treating this president different from other presidents, that is why there's momentum toward a change in our rules," Leahy said.
And after the vote, two Democratic senators, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, joined House members of the Congressional Black Caucus and said they would support changes to Senate rules.
In late October, Republicans blocked attorney Patricia Millet's nomination to fill a vacancy on the D.C. circuit court, and earlier this month the GOP blocked Georgetown law professor Cornelia Pillard from filling another vacancy on the court.
Seating judges to the D.C. circuit has proven particularly problematic for Obama.
Republicans blocked his first nominee to the court, Caitlin Halligan, who eventually withdrew her nomination.
Bush's? Count 'em up on your fingers.A whole three nominees? WOW!This whole thing blew up because the GOPpers filibustered the THIRD nominee to that court -- after an agreement in July with Reid, where the goppers broke the agreement.
It was specifically because of the his three appointments to the court that broke the camel's back.
I can't believe you are here spouting like you do when you don;t even know the BASICS>
Yow.
How many of Bush's nominees got filibustered by democrats before the Gang of 14 deal?
Obama? Here's a chart that can help you.
See that number in the title of the thread you just responded to -- That's the number of vacancies now.
I moved no goalposts. I read what you linked for content.
The agreements, by admission of the pieces you linked, were for legislation and executive branch appointments, not judicial nominees.
"So Im going to block every appointment in the United States Senate until the survivors are being made available to Congress.Fine and dandy.
The subject here is judicial branch nominees.
Please try to concentrate.
What part of "every appointment" are you having a hard time with?
That's a reneg.
We were talking about the DC Court. I didn't see anything about a court in Idaho.lol.Then you should have no problem providing a list of names.
Don't blame me if, once you go looking, you find out that I have been paying attention.
You couldn't have to make such an absurd claim.
"Four of my five nominees to this court have been obstructed. When it comes to judicial nominations, I am fulfilling my constitutional responsibility, but Congress is not." Blocking Wilkins’ nomination prompted immediate calls from some Democrats to change Senate rules to make it harder for the minority party to block nominations. Several said they had grown frustrated by GOP efforts to stop Obama's nominees.
On the Senate floor, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said blocking nominees like Wilkins could inspire Democrats to consider limiting debate on Obama's nominations.
"This kind of delay for the sake of delay, this kind of treating this president different from other presidents, that is why there's momentum toward a change in our rules," Leahy said.
And after the vote, two Democratic senators, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, joined House members of the Congressional Black Caucus and said they would support changes to Senate rules.
In late October, Republicans blocked attorney Patricia Millet's nomination to fill a vacancy on the D.C. circuit court, and earlier this month the GOP blocked Georgetown law professor Cornelia Pillard from filling another vacancy on the court.
Seating judges to the D.C. circuit has proven particularly problematic for Obama.
Republicans blocked his first nominee to the court, Caitlin Halligan, who eventually withdrew her nomination.
I didn't make an absurd claim. None of those people were nominated to the circuit court in Idaho, which is extremely backlogged. For some reason, which is apparent to anyone with a brain, Obama keeps nominating people for the one court that least needs judges, and ignores all the rest of them. Then he blames Republicans who insisted that he needs to pay attention to the other courts before they would approve anyone else for the DC Circuit, for not allowing him to do turn the court system into a political branch of the US government.
Tell me something, what are you going to do when a Republican president starts putting up judges who say they will vote against Roe v Wade, and the Democrats have to watch because they thought this was a great idea?
Bullshit -- that was never proven wrong. If anything, it's not even the full number of holds placed by GOPpers - -which is even MORE than half.Bush's? Count 'em up on your fingers.A whole three nominees? WOW!
How many of Bush's nominees got filibustered by democrats before the Gang of 14 deal?
Obama? Here's a chart that can help you.
See that number in the title of the thread you just responded to -- That's the number of vacancies now.
Wow.
You posted a link that proved that was wrong, yet you keep posting it.
Then you blame me for sneering at you.
Hey bug dog, as someone who has shown his idiocy time and time again here, you really are in no position to say dooodlyshit about what I know.I moved no goalposts. I read what you linked for content.
The agreements, by admission of the pieces you linked, were for legislation and executive branch appointments, not judicial nominees.
She thinks that there is no difference.
And now we get to the crux. It's not about the nominees -- or their qualifications, it's about ...simply"So Im going to block every appointment in the United States Senate until the survivors are being made available to Congress.Fine and dandy.
The subject here is judicial branch nominees.
Please try to concentrate.
What part of "every appointment" are you having a hard time with?
That's a reneg.
So what? Is there a reason that Democrats aren't making the same demand? Shouldn't we know what happened in Benghazi? If there is nothing to hide, why not let them testify to the Senate, even if they do it behind closed doors to keep any issues that are secret from leaking? The fact that they are not being allowed to testify at all tells me that someone is hiding something. We should demand to know what it is.
We were talking about the DC Court. I didn't see anything about a court in Idaho.lol.
You couldn't have to make such an absurd claim.
I didn't make an absurd claim. None of those people were nominated to the circuit court in Idaho, which is extremely backlogged. For some reason, which is apparent to anyone with a brain, Obama keeps nominating people for the one court that least needs judges, and ignores all the rest of them. Then he blames Republicans who insisted that he needs to pay attention to the other courts before they would approve anyone else for the DC Circuit, for not allowing him to do turn the court system into a political branch of the US government.
Tell me something, what are you going to do when a Republican president starts putting up judges who say they will vote against Roe v Wade, and the Democrats have to watch because they thought this was a great idea?
But let's take a look. Hmmm.
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho's vacancy warning level is currently set at green. The court currently has zero vacancies out of their two posts. There are no pending appointments for the district.
United States District Court for the District of Idaho - Judgepedia
Are you expecting Obama to just create more judges?
That's not his job, you know-- that falls on Congress. And if Obama did try that, that is truly the meaning of "packing the court."
Not what he's doing now, which is called "filling vacancies" which is his constitutional power/
Hey bug dog, as someone who has shown his idiocy time and time again here, you really are in no position to say dooodlyshit about what I know.I moved no goalposts. I read what you linked for content.
The agreements, by admission of the pieces you linked, were for legislation and executive branch appointments, not judicial nominees.
She thinks that there is no difference.
I certainly do, and I showed the handbag lady just where the GOPpers reneged on the agreement -- by blocking executive appointees, which they said they. would. not.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the trigger Thursday, deploying a parliamentary procedure dubbed the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules to pass most executive and judicial nominees by a simple majority vote.
And now we get to the crux. It's not about the nominees -- or their qualifications, it's about ...simply"So Im going to block every appointment in the United States Senate until the survivors are being made available to Congress.
What part of "every appointment" are you having a hard time with?
That's a reneg.
So what? Is there a reason that Democrats aren't making the same demand? Shouldn't we know what happened in Benghazi? If there is nothing to hide, why not let them testify to the Senate, even if they do it behind closed doors to keep any issues that are secret from leaking? The fact that they are not being allowed to testify at all tells me that someone is hiding something. We should demand to know what it is.
Because: Obama.
Thanks for the joy of showing everyone that raw fact.
You expected me to provide names of Obama nominations for a Circuit Court that HAD NO VACANCIES???We were talking about the DC Court. I didn't see anything about a court in Idaho.I didn't make an absurd claim. None of those people were nominated to the circuit court in Idaho, which is extremely backlogged. For some reason, which is apparent to anyone with a brain, Obama keeps nominating people for the one court that least needs judges, and ignores all the rest of them. Then he blames Republicans who insisted that he needs to pay attention to the other courts before they would approve anyone else for the DC Circuit, for not allowing him to do turn the court system into a political branch of the US government.
Tell me something, what are you going to do when a Republican president starts putting up judges who say they will vote against Roe v Wade, and the Democrats have to watch because they thought this was a great idea?
But let's take a look. Hmmm.
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho's vacancy warning level is currently set at green. The court currently has zero vacancies out of their two posts. There are no pending appointments for the district.
United States District Court for the District of Idaho - Judgepedia
Are you expecting Obama to just create more judges?
That's not his job, you know-- that falls on Congress. And if Obama did try that, that is truly the meaning of "packing the court."
Not what he's doing now, which is called "filling vacancies" which is his constitutional power/
I was talking about the Idaho circuit because a couple of people complained about it. I specifically challenged one of them to provide names, and you replied with your drivel about how I must not be paying attention.
I am paying attention,which is why you have to admit you aren't.
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>
"So Im going to block every appointment in the United States Senate until the survivors are being made available to Congress.Fine and dandy.
The subject here is judicial branch nominees.
Please try to concentrate.
What part of "every appointment" are you having a hard time with?
That's a reneg.
So what? Is there a reason that Democrats aren't making the same demand? Shouldn't we know what happened in Benghazi? If there is nothing to hide, why not let them testify to the Senate, even if they do it behind closed doors to keep any issues that are secret from leaking? The fact that they are not being allowed to testify at all tells me that someone is hiding something. We should demand to know what it is.
You expected me to provide names of Obama nominations for a Circuit Court that HAD NO VACANCIES???We were talking about the DC Court. I didn't see anything about a court in Idaho.
But let's take a look. Hmmm.
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho's vacancy warning level is currently set at green. The court currently has zero vacancies out of their two posts. There are no pending appointments for the district.
United States District Court for the District of Idaho - Judgepedia
Are you expecting Obama to just create more judges?
That's not his job, you know-- that falls on Congress. And if Obama did try that, that is truly the meaning of "packing the court."
Not what he's doing now, which is called "filling vacancies" which is his constitutional power/
I was talking about the Idaho circuit because a couple of people complained about it. I specifically challenged one of them to provide names, and you replied with your drivel about how I must not be paying attention.
I am paying attention,which is why you have to admit you aren't.
What the holy fuck?
Then you blame him for that? Is this bizarro land or what??
The Terminal Windbag: First he claimed Obama hadn't even named any of the 93 nominees where there are vacancies,
then he got taken to the woodshed over that -- and did a ba-dee ba-dee ba-dee... and then said "Obama hasn't even appointed a single person to fill the vacancy" -- which was now, as we see, about a court in Idaho Obama COULDN'T APPOINT A NOMINEE.
Then he gets all huffy and challenges me to find a name -- that couldn't even exist!
This is just too weird following the warped convolutions that go on in connie's brain
Geezez. You still don't get it.Hey bug dog, as someone who has shown his idiocy time and time again here, you really are in no position to say dooodlyshit about what I know.She thinks that there is no difference.
I certainly do, and I showed the handbag lady just where the GOPpers reneged on the agreement -- by blocking executive appointees, which they said they. would. not.
I will type this really slow, perhaps that will help. They promised to vote for executive appointments, the people that Obama needs to do his job. The nuclear option was invoked to make it possible to end filibusters on executive and judicial nominations.
Here is a PuffHo article to prove I actually know what I am talking about.
Senate Votes For Nuclear OptionSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the trigger Thursday, deploying a parliamentary procedure dubbed the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules to pass most executive and judicial nominees by a simple majority vote.
That, believe it or not, makes you wrong.
