Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[mudwhistle]

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.'

They were thinking that Obama sometimes picks criminal judges that rule from the bench and even contribute to his campaign to gain recognition.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why such a backlog of 90+ appointments in the first place?

Because democrats tabled more than 20 and fillibustered 10 of Bushes appointments in the 108th congress. They kept at the table and stall tactic until Bush stopped resending appointees to the senate. Since they were simply being tabled or stalled intentionally. You know, obstruction, or perhaps terrorism.

 

[rightwinger]

All the Republicans in the U.S. Senate were was obstructionist.

The number of filibusters of presidential appointments from George Washington to the shrub were a total of Eighty-Two (82).

The number of filibusters of Presidential Appoints under President Obama is Eighty-Six (86).

Harry Reid warned McChinless to stop obstructing, and the Turtle refused.

You reap what you sow.

And you spew the Dnc talking points well...make's you a sheep and parrot

you don't care turning the power of we the people over to politicians...that's sad and that's why the Democrat party is doing it...They see you sheep don't give one shit about them WALKING all over us

Of course not, he's a statist.....

Stalin put an end to filibusters?

Who knew?

 

[Stephanie]

there a difference in doing your job and obstruction the senate ... the republican are obstructing the senate ... they aren't doing their job ... they are forcing their Ideology on everybody ...

O......M.....G!!! The Dumbocrats have evoked the "nuclear option" so they can force their ideology on everyone and your complaint is that the nuclear option is necessary to prevent Republicans from doing the same?

Seriously folks - have you ever heard anything like this?

The absurdity of that statement is priceless...

suck to be you !!!! the minority

wow, you all care about no one else but your party...
party over country for you people and they have a leash on you in their base leading you from the ring in your noses..
you must be real proud

 

[candycorn]

So..I gather was the conservatives are saying is..

Majority Rule in the House = Good.
Majority Rule in the Senate = Bad.

Why is that?

Different rules in the House and Senate. I don't think there should be different rules but there are...or at least were.

Simple majorities are good and I think better than super majorities

I'll give you an analogy.

If you and your wife are considering making a big purchase; let's say a security system for your house and you need it pretty badly due to a break-in next door. It's going to cost $3,000.

If you have $50K in the bank; not a problem. Sign the check.

If you don't have $50K in the bank and are in debt, lets say $17T in debt, that $3,000 is problematic. But you have good income but each year you spend about $1T more than you take in. That $3K is still needed but it's got to come from somewhere.

You think it should come from sacrificing Junior's braces
She thinks it should come from not buying beef for 6 months

In the past, what would happen is you may get Junior only the bottom teeth straightened this year and the uppers done next year and not buy beef for 3 months instead of six.

If you had total say (or if your wife did), there is now no need to negotiate since the rules have changed.

The point is that majority rule is great when there is largess and plenty. When tough decisions are to be made (and we have a shit load of them upcoming), paper thin majorities that give you 100% of what you want are likely not the smartest way to get there from here.

First off..you missed the point.

Second off the whole idea of a Senate and House came from the English Parliament's House of Lords and House of Commons. The idea being the House of Lords were made up of more learned and careful people.

I kind of agree with the concept. The House is made up a districts and therefore more given to populism. While the Senators represent the state and must give consideration to the whole state. And the idea that the minority should be able to challenge the majority is sound. It gives the process time to think about what they are doing.

However, this is a case where the minority is completely trying to undo the results of an election. They are trying to nullify the vote.

And that's not good.

I agree it's not good but the remedy is to call a summitt and tell Senators McConnell, Cornyn, McCain, etc... and have public negotiations with the date for the shenanigans to be called to an end on 1/1/2020 or whenever--when neither Party knows who will be in power and thusly who will win or who will lose.

Then when the knuckle draggers go all Republican and start their tactics of all or nothing, and solidify the "party of no" that they so willfully embrace currently...you go on Meet the Press and Face the Nation and make your case. "We're proposing that 6 years from now, we end the filibuster for nominees and propose a simple majority". Look if the nation has survived these shenanigans for the last 30 hyper-partisan years, it can survive 6 more surely.

And when the GOP continues to do their dance and serve the overarching paradigm of never giving an inch; then you employ the nuclear option.

By doing this, you look calm, level headed, and like the grown-up in the room.
By doing what Reid did, you look like a political opportunist.

 

[mudwhistle]

there a difference in doing your job and obstruction the senate ... the republican are obstructing the senate ... they aren't doing their job ... they are forcing their Ideology on everybody ...

O......M.....G!!! The Dumbocrats have evoked the "nuclear option" so they can force their ideology on everyone and your complaint is that the nuclear option is necessary to prevent Republicans from doing the same?

Seriously folks - have you ever heard anything like this?

The absurdity of that statement is priceless...

suck to be you !!!! the minority

I can't believe you're still here.

 

[candycorn]

So..I gather was the conservatives are saying is..

Majority Rule in the House = Good.
Majority Rule in the Senate = Bad.

Why is that?

Different rules in the House and Senate. I don't think there should be different rules but there are...or at least were.

Simple majorities are good and I think better than super majorities

I'll give you an analogy.

If you and your wife are considering making a big purchase; let's say a security system for your house and you need it pretty badly due to a break-in next door. It's going to cost $3,000.

If you have $50K in the bank; not a problem. Sign the check.

If you don't have $50K in the bank and are in debt, lets say $17T in debt, that $3,000 is problematic. But you have good income but each year you spend about $1T more than you take in. That $3K is still needed but it's got to come from somewhere.

You think it should come from sacrificing Junior's braces
She thinks it should come from not buying beef for 6 months

In the past, what would happen is you may get Junior only the bottom teeth straightened this year and the uppers done next year and not buy beef for 3 months instead of six.

If you had total say (or if your wife did), there is now no need to negotiate since the rules have changed.

The point is that majority rule is great when there is largess and plenty. When tough decisions are to be made (and we have a shit load of them upcoming), paper thin majorities that give you 100% of what you want are likely not the smartest way to get there from here.

It is refreshing to see a Democrat being honest and not being a partisan hack.

This change is BAD for America. It's bad for America if Dumbocrats control the Senate. It's bad for America if Republicans control the Senate. It is just plain BAD. And even Obama, Biden, and Reid have admitted as much...

It's worse when people like you applaud Al Queda because you hate Obama so much. FOAD

 

[Sallow]

All the Republicans in the U.S. Senate were was obstructionist.

The number of filibusters of presidential appointments from George Washington to the shrub were a total of Eighty-Two (82).

The number of filibusters of Presidential Appoints under President Obama is Eighty-Six (86).

Harry Reid warned McChinless to stop obstructing, and the Turtle refused.

You reap what you sow.

So you're admitting that Dumbocrats filibustered every bit as much as the current Republicans have?

You do realize that 82 is damn near dead-even with 86, don't you?

You even bother to read these things?

From President GEORGE WASHINGTON to GEORGE W. BUSH = 82.

President BARACK OBAMA = 86.

Which means that there were MORE FILIBUSTERS on APPOINTMENTS during the OBAMA administration then the combined administrations of EVERY other PRESIDENT in this country.

 

[rightwinger]

All the Republicans in the U.S. Senate were was obstructionist.

The number of filibusters of presidential appointments from George Washington to the shrub were a total of Eighty-Two (82).

The number of filibusters of Presidential Appoints under President Obama is Eighty-Six (86).

Harry Reid warned McChinless to stop obstructing, and the Turtle refused.

You reap what you sow.

So you're admitting that Dumbocrats filibustered every bit as much as the current Republicans have?

You do realize that 82 is damn near dead-even with 86, don't you?

Did you pay attention to the comparison?

LOL

Rott is easily distracted by shiny objects. 82 is almost 86....what a moron

 

[candycorn]

So you're admitting that Dumbocrats filibustered every bit as much as the current Republicans have?

You do realize that 82 is damn near dead-even with 86, don't you?

Did you pay attention to the comparison?

LOL

Rott is easily distracted by shiny objects. 82 is almost 86....what a moron

332-206 sort of messes him up too.

 

[mudwhistle]

Different rules in the House and Senate. I don't think there should be different rules but there are...or at least were.

Simple majorities are good and I think better than super majorities

I'll give you an analogy.

If you and your wife are considering making a big purchase; let's say a security system for your house and you need it pretty badly due to a break-in next door. It's going to cost $3,000.

If you have $50K in the bank; not a problem. Sign the check.

If you don't have $50K in the bank and are in debt, lets say $17T in debt, that $3,000 is problematic. But you have good income but each year you spend about $1T more than you take in. That $3K is still needed but it's got to come from somewhere.

You think it should come from sacrificing Junior's braces
She thinks it should come from not buying beef for 6 months

In the past, what would happen is you may get Junior only the bottom teeth straightened this year and the uppers done next year and not buy beef for 3 months instead of six.

If you had total say (or if your wife did), there is now no need to negotiate since the rules have changed.

The point is that majority rule is great when there is largess and plenty. When tough decisions are to be made (and we have a shit load of them upcoming), paper thin majorities that give you 100% of what you want are likely not the smartest way to get there from here.

First off..you missed the point.

Second off the whole idea of a Senate and House came from the English Parliament's House of Lords and House of Commons. The idea being the House of Lords were made up of more learned and careful people.

I kind of agree with the concept. The House is made up a districts and therefore more given to populism. While the Senators represent the state and must give consideration to the whole state. And the idea that the minority should be able to challenge the majority is sound. It gives the process time to think about what they are doing.

However, this is a case where the minority is completely trying to undo the results of an election. They are trying to nullify the vote.

And that's not good.

I agree it's not good but the remedy is to call a summitt and tell Senators McConnell, Cornyn, McCain, etc... and have public negotiations with the date for the shenanigans to be called to an end on 1/1/2020 or whenever--when neither Party knows who will be in power and thusly who will win or who will lose.

Then when the knuckle draggers go all Republican and start their tactics of all or nothing, and solidify the "party of no" that they so willfully embrace currently...you go on Meet the Press and Face the Nation and make your case. "We're proposing that 6 years from now, we end the filibuster for nominees and propose a simple majority". Look if the nation has survived these shenanigans for the last 30 hyper-partisan years, it can survive 6 more surely.

And when the GOP continues to do their dance and serve the overarching paradigm of never giving an inch; then you employ the nuclear option.

By doing this, you look calm, level headed, and like the grown-up in the room.
By doing what Reid did, you look like a political opportunist.

Hard to believe you posted this.

Maybe there's hope for you yet......

 

[billyerock1991]

The present people controlling the GOP see the world through their ideological glasses. Glasses which fade out reality. They simply cannot believe that anyone can see any issue in a differant light than they do. So when the inevitable reaction takes place against the idiocy they display, they are totally surprised. Clueless, feckless, and really kind of stupid is the best description of these people.

Tell us again @Old Rocks? Please? So you can illustrate for the world a second time just how insanely fuck'n ignorant you really are...

[ame=http://youtu.be/r-nZJ0flnQU]Best Of Harry Reid Opposing Nuclear Option. Harry Reid Compilation - YouTube[/ame]

and yet dumb fucks like rottweller get to exist that's the liberal way we let you exist we let you complain and we let you whine ... can't help what a loser you really are... rottweller

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The present people controlling the GOP see the world through their ideological glasses. Glasses which fade out reality. They simply cannot believe that anyone can see any issue in a differant light than they do. So when the inevitable reaction takes place against the idiocy they display, they are totally surprised. Clueless, feckless, and really kind of stupid is the best description of these people.

Tell us again @Old Rocks? Please? So you can illustrate for the world a second time just how insanely fuck'n ignorant you really are...

[ame=http://youtu.be/r-nZJ0flnQU]Best Of Harry Reid Opposing Nuclear Option. Harry Reid Compilation - YouTube[/ame]

and yet dumb fucks like rottweller get to exist that's the liberal way we let you exist we let you complain and we let you whine ... can't help what a loser you really are... rottweller

You LET him??? You're a complete authoritarian fascist. You dont let anything, except that shit roll out of your mouth.

 

[Sallow]

Different rules in the House and Senate. I don't think there should be different rules but there are...or at least were.

Simple majorities are good and I think better than super majorities

I'll give you an analogy.

If you and your wife are considering making a big purchase; let's say a security system for your house and you need it pretty badly due to a break-in next door. It's going to cost $3,000.

If you have $50K in the bank; not a problem. Sign the check.

If you don't have $50K in the bank and are in debt, lets say $17T in debt, that $3,000 is problematic. But you have good income but each year you spend about $1T more than you take in. That $3K is still needed but it's got to come from somewhere.

You think it should come from sacrificing Junior's braces
She thinks it should come from not buying beef for 6 months

In the past, what would happen is you may get Junior only the bottom teeth straightened this year and the uppers done next year and not buy beef for 3 months instead of six.

If you had total say (or if your wife did), there is now no need to negotiate since the rules have changed.

The point is that majority rule is great when there is largess and plenty. When tough decisions are to be made (and we have a shit load of them upcoming), paper thin majorities that give you 100% of what you want are likely not the smartest way to get there from here.

First off..you missed the point.

Second off the whole idea of a Senate and House came from the English Parliament's House of Lords and House of Commons. The idea being the House of Lords were made up of more learned and careful people.

I kind of agree with the concept. The House is made up a districts and therefore more given to populism. While the Senators represent the state and must give consideration to the whole state. And the idea that the minority should be able to challenge the majority is sound. It gives the process time to think about what they are doing.

However, this is a case where the minority is completely trying to undo the results of an election. They are trying to nullify the vote.

And that's not good.

I agree it's not good but the remedy is to call a summitt and tell Senators McConnell, Cornyn, McCain, etc... and have public negotiations with the date for the shenanigans to be called to an end on 1/1/2020 or whenever--when neither Party knows who will be in power and thusly who will win or who will lose.

Then when the knuckle draggers go all Republican and start their tactics of all or nothing, and solidify the "party of no" that they so willfully embrace currently...you go on Meet the Press and Face the Nation and make your case. "We're proposing that 6 years from now, we end the filibuster for nominees and propose a simple majority". Look if the nation has survived these shenanigans for the last 30 hyper-partisan years, it can survive 6 more surely.

And when the GOP continues to do their dance and serve the overarching paradigm of never giving an inch; then you employ the nuclear option.

By doing this, you look calm, level headed, and like the grown-up in the room.
By doing what Reid did, you look like a political opportunist.

Not really.

And what you've proposed was done. It failed.

Reid didn't have a strong hand here..and would have looked very weak if he did nothing after such a breach.


The Republicans forced this..and some probably wanted it..for reasons I've already explained.

The Filibuster was never meant to be BAU.

 

[Stephanie]

You took the house from Democrats over this sort of thing, Obamafailnocare

Time to take EVERYTHING away in the upcoming Elections..

Show them you aren't going to stand for this abuse of power

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course you would Hitler. You're pissed off (like ALL Dumbocrats) that having the majority in one chamber does not equal DICTATORIAL CONTROL. Which is all you little Nazi's have ever wanted and part of the reason you guys have always hated America - the balance of power.

The Constitution puts the power of judicial nominee approval in the hands of one chamber, the Senate.

If the President and a majority in the Senate should not have the power to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

Why is that so hard for you to answer?

I explained this clearly already - page #3, post #39.

Game. Set. Match.

That monkey jabber was not an answer. The question is:

If the President and a majority in the Senate should not have the power to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

...

D'Oh!


He always did

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Constitution puts the power of judicial nominee approval in the hands of one chamber, the Senate.

If the President and a majority in the Senate should not have the power to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

Why is that so hard for you to answer?

I explained this clearly already - page #3, post #39.

Game. Set. Match.

That monkey jabber was not an answer. The question is:

If the President and a majority in the Senate should not have the power to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

good post


but wasting your time with this bozo

 

[NYcarbineer]

I explained this clearly already - page #3, post #39.

Game. Set. Match.

That monkey jabber was not an answer. The question is:

If the President and a majority in the Senate should not have the power to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

good post


but wasting your time with this bozo

He's not the only one. No one amongst those bitching about this can answer the question.

That means I've proven that this is nothing more than an irrational piss and moan session for the Obama haters.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That monkey jabber was not an answer. The question is:

If the President and a majority in the Senate should not have the power to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

good post


but wasting your time with this bozo

He's not the only one. No one amongst those bitching about this can answer the question.

That means I've proven that this is nothing more than an irrational piss and moan session for the Obama haters.

They should be appointed in the same fashion they were for over 250 years. With the advice and consent of the senate. Not the democrat senate, or the republican senate. Because your question is a simple one based on understanding senate procedure, it is likely this is the reason no one bothered to answer your elementary question.