Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[Avatar4321]

Elections have consequences. Obama has always had the power to apoint Federal Judges. It's given to them in the Constitution.

The Senate has the power to advise & consent for those nominees. How they do that is their discretion. Judicial Nominees were not fillibustered until recently. If you are worried about who gets placed in Federal Judicial spots, you need to elected good Senators and good Presidents. You do that by building up the local levels.

We need to stop ceding states over to the left. Let's rebuild parties in the big cities. Build grass roots in the party.

There is alot of work to do.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Anyone paying attention can read how they are defending blocking nominations for purely partisan reason that have nothing to do with principles of Senate rules or debate

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Elections have consequences. Obama has always had the power to apoint Federal Judges. It's given to them in the Constitution.

The Senate has the power to advise & consent for those nominees. How they do that is their discretion. Judicial Nominees were not fillibustered until recently. If you are worried about who gets placed in Federal Judicial spots, you need to elected good Senators and good Presidents. You do that by building up the local levels.

We need to stop ceding states over to the left. Let's rebuild parties in the big cities. Build grass roots in the party.

There is alot of work to do.

Where did this brilliant synopsis come from?

 

[candycorn]

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.

Given that both sides have employed the tactic it will (and should) ring hollow that somehow the Dems had no choice when the GOP suffered through the same shenanigans--and would be if we had a GOP president and a GOP senate today.

 

[candycorn]

Elections have consequences. Obama has always had the power to apoint Federal Judges. It's given to them in the Constitution.

The Senate has the power to advise & consent for those nominees. How they do that is their discretion. Judicial Nominees were not fillibustered until recently. If you are worried about who gets placed in Federal Judicial spots, you need to elected good Senators and good Presidents. You do that by building up the local levels.

We need to stop ceding states over to the left. Let's rebuild parties in the big cities. Build grass roots in the party.

There is alot of work to do.

Where did this brilliant synopsis come from?

Yeah...Arrest whoever wrote that; she's an imposter... Either that or it was what I'm sure was an uncontrollable carem into common sense.

 

[P@triot]

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 me" exist @billyerock1991?!?

The only reason you exist is because you mooch - like a parasite - off of us conservatives who produce. You wouldn't have a fuck'n meal to eat if you didn't mooch off of us.

And the really funny part? It's helpless little bitches like @billyerock1991 who do all of the crying! Liberals can't figure out how to take care of themselves - which is why they have to beg government to do it for them.

 

[P@triot]

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?

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

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Avatar4321]

Elections have consequences. Obama has always had the power to apoint Federal Judges. It's given to them in the Constitution.

The Senate has the power to advise & consent for those nominees. How they do that is their discretion. Judicial Nominees were not fillibustered until recently. If you are worried about who gets placed in Federal Judicial spots, you need to elected good Senators and good Presidents. You do that by building up the local levels.

We need to stop ceding states over to the left. Let's rebuild parties in the big cities. Build grass roots in the party.

There is alot of work to do.

Where did this brilliant synopsis come from?

My mind. You may not think much of my politics, but I am not an idiot.

I also don't see the point in complaining about Democrats doing something I think Republicans should have done a decade ago. If they had, perhaps we wouldn't have so many openings here for Obama to nominate people.

 

[P@triot]

Elections have consequences. Obama has always had the power to apoint Federal Judges. It's given to them in the Constitution.

The Senate has the power to advise & consent for those nominees. How they do that is their discretion. Judicial Nominees were not fillibustered until recently. If you are worried about who gets placed in Federal Judicial spots, you need to elected good Senators and good Presidents. You do that by building up the local levels.

We need to stop ceding states over to the left. Let's rebuild parties in the big cities. Build grass roots in the party.

There is alot of work to do.

As usual Avatar - you spew nonsensical idealism.

The whole notion of "election have consequences" is the radial nazi left-wing narrative that since they were elected, they have dictatorial power.

Sorry, our REPUBLIC (not democracy - REPUBLIC) was specifically designed to protect against that type of idiocy. We have a Constitution which limits the power of the president, the House, the Senate, and the rest of the federal government - and no election (consequences or otherwise) changes that fact.

Obama doesn't get fast-track this nation into marxism simply because he rigged an election. Doesn't work that way chief. Sorry.

 

[P@triot]

Elections have consequences. Obama has always had the power to apoint Federal Judges. It's given to them in the Constitution.

The Senate has the power to advise & consent for those nominees. How they do that is their discretion. Judicial Nominees were not fillibustered until recently. If you are worried about who gets placed in Federal Judicial spots, you need to elected good Senators and good Presidents. You do that by building up the local levels.

We need to stop ceding states over to the left. Let's rebuild parties in the big cities. Build grass roots in the party.

There is alot of work to do.

Where did this brilliant synopsis come from?

My mind. You may not think much of my politics, but I am not an idiot.

I also don't see the point in complaining about Democrats doing something I think Republicans should have done a decade ago. If they had, perhaps we wouldn't have so many openings here for Obama to nominate people.

And there you have it folks. Because he wanted Republicans to take authoritarian power, he's ok with the Dumbocrats doing it...

 

[P@triot]

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

Obama has the power to appoint judges.

The Republicans in the Senate have the power to filibuster a bad appointment.

That's how the system works, stupid. Which part of that don't you understand.

You're ignorance of the U.S. government (mixed with you desire to be a lazy parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen) does not change the fact that the Republican's have the power to filibuster.

Would you like to try again? Would you like to try a new narrative that actually holds up?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Elections have consequences. Obama has always had the power to apoint Federal Judges. It's given to them in the Constitution.

The Senate has the power to advise & consent for those nominees. How they do that is their discretion. Judicial Nominees were not fillibustered until recently. If you are worried about who gets placed in Federal Judicial spots, you need to elected good Senators and good Presidents. You do that by building up the local levels.

We need to stop ceding states over to the left. Let's rebuild parties in the big cities. Build grass roots in the party.

There is alot of work to do.

Where did this brilliant synopsis come from?

My mind. You may not think much of my politics, but I am not an idiot.

I also don't see the point in complaining about Democrats doing something I think Republicans should have done a decade ago. If they had, perhaps we wouldn't have so many openings here for Obama to nominate people.

Like the framers I detest direct democracy. When this was tried last few times I objected out of principle, protecting the minority, but there comes a time when abuse of a rule and protection warrants revisiting it.

The right wing in America has consistently abused policies and rules of Congress since at least the1970s. When Bush was VP in the 1980s, his lawyer, C. Boyden Gray, sent a memo laying out how the GOP majority in the Senate could view and use a rule differently. Things have gone that way -- down hill ever since.

For those of us who have always valued the institutions of government, your politics is anathema. But we support and defend your right to have and express your politics. We also view some things as non negotiable for compromise...things that would divide or destroy the very fabric of our system

 

[rightwinger]

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

Obama has the power to appoint judges.

The Republicans in the Senate have the power to filibuster a bad appointment.

That's how the system works, stupid. Which part of that don't you understand.

You're ignorance of the U.S. government (mixed with you desire to be a lazy parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen) does not change the fact that the Republican's have the power to filibuster.

Would you like to try again? Would you like to try a new narrative that actually holds up?

The majority party in the Senate has the power to modify filibuster rules. That's how the system works, stupid. Which part don't you understand?

 

[P@triot]

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?

Obama has the power to appoint judges.

The Republicans in the Senate have the power to filibuster a bad appointment. That's how the system works, stupid. Which part of that don't you understand. And I explained this already on page #3, post #39.

You're ignorance of the U.S. government (mixed with you desire to be a lazy parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen) does not change the fact that the Republican's have the power to filibuster.

Would you like to try again [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]? Would you like to try a new narrative that actually holds up?

 

[P@triot]

good post

but wasting your time with this bozo

Obama has the power to appoint judges.

The Republicans in the Senate have the power to filibuster a bad appointment.

That's how the system works, stupid. Which part of that don't you understand.

You're ignorance of the U.S. government (mixed with you desire to be a lazy parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen) does not change the fact that the Republican's have the power to filibuster.

Would you like to try again? Would you like to try a new narrative that actually holds up?

The majority party in the Senate has the power to modify filibuster rules. That's how the system works, stupid. Which part don't you understand?

Then why did these SAME Dumbocrats wail like little bitches about NOT "modifying" the filibuster rules, stupid?!?! Do you realize what a fuck'n ignorant tool you and your buddies sound like when you're on video contradicting your own words and your own rules [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]?!?

[ame=http://youtu.be/1pWHHw-dAV4]Obama: Nuclear Option Not Good For Either Part, About Power Instead Of Democracy - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/K1Dacnvjf8A]Biden On Nuclear Option In 2005: "I Pray To God" Democrats Do Not Do This When We Have Power - YouTube[/ame]

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

 

[mamooth]

Republicans, this is where you need to grow up and compromise.

That is, give a list of some judges and executive appointees to Obama, and offer to work with Obama on his nominees if he'll grant you some of yours.

Remember, the Democrats don't have to oblige you. But they would, if you simply stopped acting like crybabies and adopted a spirit of bipartisan compromise.

But if acting like grownups is too much to ask from you, so be it. If that is your choice, you get the nothing that you've asked for and so richly deserve.

Remember, you Republicans attempted to subvert the Constitution by removing the president's powers to make appointments. And you're actually proud of that near-treason. So why should any loyal American _not_ consider you to be traitors? As far as decent Americans go, y'all are on citizenship probation, assumed to be disloyal to the Constitution until you prove otherwise with good behavior.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Obama has the power to appoint judges.

The Republicans in the Senate have the power to filibuster a bad appointment.

That's how the system works, stupid. Which part of that don't you understand.

You're ignorance of the U.S. government (mixed with you desire to be a lazy parasite who mooches off of his fellow citizen) does not change the fact that the Republican's have the power to filibuster.

Would you like to try again? Would you like to try a new narrative that actually holds up?

The Executive/President has the power to appoint judges: US Constitution

The Minority in the Senate have the power to filibuster an appointment: Senate Rules

That's how the system works, stupid. Which part of that don't you understand.

and btw, Conservatives, unlike creeps like you, have admitted it was not about the quality of appointees, but about blocking Obama being able to appoint...that is what grid lock is all about. Not principle but partisan shit

please stfu and let the adults discuss things

 

[Avatar4321]

Elections have consequences. Obama has always had the power to apoint Federal Judges. It's given to them in the Constitution.

The Senate has the power to advise & consent for those nominees. How they do that is their discretion. Judicial Nominees were not fillibustered until recently. If you are worried about who gets placed in Federal Judicial spots, you need to elected good Senators and good Presidents. You do that by building up the local levels.

We need to stop ceding states over to the left. Let's rebuild parties in the big cities. Build grass roots in the party.

There is alot of work to do.

As usual Avatar - you spew nonsensical idealism.

The whole notion of "election have consequences" is the radial nazi left-wing narrative that since they were elected, they have dictatorial power.

Sorry, our REPUBLIC (not democracy - REPUBLIC) was specifically designed to protect against that type of idiocy. We have a Constitution which limits the power of the president, the House, the Senate, and the rest of the federal government - and no election (consequences or otherwise) changes that fact.

Obama doesn't get fast-track this nation into marxism simply because he rigged an election. Doesn't work that way chief. Sorry.

I am very aware that we are a Republic. And that the Constitution doesn't require a super majority from the Senate to confirm judges.

Elections do have consequences. I fought against them being elected, but we can't scream it's unfair when the people elected them. There is no evidence that he rigged any election. If people vote for a totalitarian in sheeps clothing, that's what we get. At least until we have a time to correct that decision.

The only Senator who had a questionable election to my knowledge is Senator Franken. Thankfully the people will have a chance to correct that next year.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rotty keeps repeating the same old thing while totally ignoring anything factual that others post. Yet others continually feed him

 

[P@triot]

Elections have consequences. Obama has always had the power to apoint Federal Judges. It's given to them in the Constitution.

The Senate has the power to advise & consent for those nominees. How they do that is their discretion. Judicial Nominees were not fillibustered until recently. If you are worried about who gets placed in Federal Judicial spots, you need to elected good Senators and good Presidents. You do that by building up the local levels.

We need to stop ceding states over to the left. Let's rebuild parties in the big cities. Build grass roots in the party.

There is alot of work to do.

As usual Avatar - you spew nonsensical idealism.

The whole notion of "election have consequences" is the radial nazi left-wing narrative that since they were elected, they have dictatorial power.

Sorry, our REPUBLIC (not democracy - REPUBLIC) was specifically designed to protect against that type of idiocy. We have a Constitution which limits the power of the president, the House, the Senate, and the rest of the federal government - and no election (consequences or otherwise) changes that fact.

Obama doesn't get fast-track this nation into marxism simply because he rigged an election. Doesn't work that way chief. Sorry.

I am very aware that we are a Republic. And that the Constitution doesn't require a super majority from the Senate to confirm judges.

Elections do have consequences. I fought against them being elected, but we can't scream it's unfair when the people elected them. There is no evidence that he rigged any election. If people vote for a totalitarian in sheeps clothing, that's what we get. At least until we have a time to correct that decision.

The only Senator who had a questionable election to my knowledge is Senator Franken. Thankfully the people will have a chance to correct that next year.

Really Avatar?

So the fact that Obama used the IRS to block Tea Party and other Conservative groups is ok with you? It's not rigging an election?

And the fact that Obama LIED about the unemployment numbers to make the people believe he was doing a better job than he actually was is ok with you? It's not rigging an election?

Really Avatar? Wow. Come on, give us some of your more idealism...