Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

A whole three nominees? WOW!

How many of Bush's nominees got filibustered by democrats before the Gang of 14 deal?

 

[paperview]

Now is your chance to prove how petty the Republicans have been by listing all the people that Obama has appointed to that bench that haven't been approved by the Republicans.

Good luck with that because Obama hasn't even appointed a single person to fill the vacancy.

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.

lol.

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.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Hey Windbag, I'll be sure to add this gem to your thread:

Here's some fun for ya's

2005:


Liberty Counsel - Liberty Alert - Print Version

*edited for brevity

True as all that is, the Senate republicans still didn't change the rules and opted for the compromise route. The famous (or infamous) Gang of 14.

I thought democrats lived and died for the compromise. Where is the 2013 version of the Gang of 14, that wishes to work with the other side in a bipartisan way?

Or is all that bluster from democrats about bipartisanship and compromise just a bunch of cynical and disingenuous prattling?

That was tried. Many times.

The republicans had no interest in compromise.

Link?

 

[paperview]

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.

A whole three nominees? WOW!

How many of Bush's nominees got filibustered by democrats before the Gang of 14 deal?

Bush's? Count 'em up on your fingers.

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.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

A whole three nominees? WOW!

How many of Bush's nominees got filibustered by democrats before the Gang of 14 deal?

Bush's? Count 'em up on your fingers.

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.

Yes, and?

Where is the democrat answer to the Gang of 14?

Who are the counters to Micheal Lutig, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, who got thrown overboard in order to strike the grand bargain?

Name names.

 

[paperview]

True as all that is, the Senate republicans still didn't change the rules and opted for the compromise route. The famous (or infamous) Gang of 14.

I thought democrats lived and died for the compromise. Where is the 2013 version of the Gang of 14, that wishes to work with the other side in a bipartisan way?

Or is all that bluster from democrats about bipartisanship and compromise just a bunch of cynical and disingenuous prattling?

That was tried. Many times.

The republicans had no interest in compromise.

Link?

The GOP reneged on their own compromise.
The Goppers kept pushing and pushing and pushing.

Filibuster Deal Heralds Stirrings of Compromise
Published: July 17, 2013


WASHINGTON — The Senate agreement to pull back from unilateral rules changes that would have eroded the power of the filibuster was hailed by both parties as the beginning of a new spirit of bipartisan cooperation that saved the Senate. But to some policy makers practiced in the art of compromise, it represented a potential missed opportunity.

A Senate where 51 votes rule — not the filibuster-proof 60 — may well have empowered the political center to force compromise, taking power from the political poles, and especially from the party leadership, and returning it to potential deal makers.

Senators who embraced Tuesday’s agreement to call off filibusters of executive-branch nominees promised this week to extend the spirit of compromise to more whole-Senate gatherings, retreats, budget negotiations and other vexing legislative matters. Seven senators, four Democrats and three Republicans, unveiled legislation on Wednesday to offer legal protection to journalists ensnared in leak investigations.

Indeed, the deal to head off the filibuster-rule change nearly derailed 24 hours after it was struck when Thomas E. Perez, President Obama’s nominee to be labor secretary, squeaked past a Senate filibuster by a single vote on Wednesday afternoon, 60 to 40.
The Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona, the architect of the filibuster deal; Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee; Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois; and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska saved the nominee — and the supposedly growing spirit of bipartisanship.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/us/politics/filibuster-deal-heralds-stirrings-of-compromise.html

 

[HelenaHandbag]

That says executive branch nominees, not judicial.

 

[paperview]

Oh, look at that goal post mover. The contentious debates over the abuse of the filibuster have been going on for some time now -- and it took Reid 4 1 1/2 years to finally decide -- Enough is enough!

Here's some other attempts earlier in the year...and the agreement to only use filibusters for nominees in "extraordinary circumstances."

January 24, 2013: Reid and McConnell agree to a bipartisan compromise authored by a handful of senior senators. The new rules essentially short-circuit one filibuster vote during the “motion to proceed” to a bill, when the chamber begins considering legislation. Republicans had increasingly filibustered the motion to begin debating legislation to slow the passage of bills or block them.


July 11, 2013: During a blistering floor dispute over threatened rules changes, McConnell said that if Reid goes through with the so-called nuclear option, “our friend the majority leader is going to be remembered as the worst leader here ever.”


July 26, 2013: In another near-meltdown, Republicans agreed to confirm several of President Obama’s executive branch nominees and, in exchange, Democrats agreed to leave existing filibuster rules in place. The agreement came after an unprecedented closed-door meeting of senators in the Old Senate Chamber.

"Extraordinary circumstances" myass. Well, that has been shown to be a pile of pigshit, cause they were still blocking them left and right after that, with pub senators even saying "it's not about the nominee..."

and Linsey ******* Graham saying he'll block every single damn nominee if he didn;t get his BenGhaAazzziii!! fix - (extra middle finger: Graham was using the PHONY discredited 60 Minutes interview as his basis to put spies under the lite and hold up ALL nominees.)

Yeah, now you wanna play pick the fly shit out of the executive pepper.

Riiiiight!

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

 

[paperview]

All you're showing to the readers is you haven't been paying attention the last 4 1/2 years.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

What is shown is that I can read for content.

None of what you posted has anything to do with judicial branch nominees.

 

[Trajan]

I know idaho has been asking for additional federal judge.
maybe it's a good idea to back off that now.

They're swamped w/ work and the docket is backed-up because they're understaffed. I hope Obama appoints lots & lots of judges now.

humm, the DC circuit is NOT anywhere near swamped, grassley didn't see the point of filling it either when they could have.

 

[paperview]

What is shown is that I can read for content.

None of what you posted has anything to do with judicial branch nominees.

Read the Lindsey ******* Graham part.
Lindsey Graham Vows to Block Obama Nominees Until Benghazi Survivors Testify



Then you tell me Lindsey ******* Graham didn't reneg on the deal.


"So I’m going to block every appointment in the United States Senate until the survivors are being made available to Congress.”

​

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Fine and dandy.

The subject here is judicial branch nominees.

Please try to concentrate.

 

[paperview]

I know idaho has been asking for additional federal judge.
maybe it's a good idea to back off that now.

They're swamped w/ work and the docket is backed-up because they're understaffed. I hope Obama appoints lots & lots of judges now.

humm, the DC circuit is NOT anywhere near swamped, grassley didn't see the point of filling it either when they could have.

Another one who fell for Grassley's ridiculous line.

"This effort is a shockingly transparent effort to deny the president his constitutional right to nominate federal judges to fill vacant seats. Grassley’s action also ignores the unique and important nature of the D.C. Circuit, which enjoys special jurisdiction to hear cases that go to the very function of the federal government. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an article in 2006, titled “What Makes the D.C.Circuit Different? A Historical View,” in which he identifies all the distinctions between the D.C. Circuit and other appellate courts."


COLUMNISTS & LEGAL EXPERTS RECOGNIZE NEED TO FILL
D.C CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS & HOLD YES - OR - NO VOTES ON NOMINEES
"In actual fact, the D.C. Circuit is actually so overloaded with cases —its heavy policy load makes its docket especially technically demanding — that it has leaned on a panel of retired judges to hear its overflow cases." From above link.

There's this too: "In fact, the average caseload for the Court is up, from 119 cases in 2005 to 188 cases this year."

Chief Justice Roberts, who heads the non-partisan Federal Judicial Center that studies the Courts and provides Congress with it's recommendation, has stated the vacancies need to be filled.

Grassley is full of it.

 

[paperview]

Fine and dandy.

The subject here is judicial branch nominees.

Please try to concentrate.

"So I’m 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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What agreement are you talking about? Do you have a copy of it? What part did the goppers break? What the **** are goppers?

 

[rightwinger]

Fine and dandy.

The subject here is judicial branch nominees.

Please try to concentrate.

"So I’m 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.

Once again, Republicans overplayed a weak hand and lost

How many times did they think they could go to that well?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey Windbag, I'll be sure to add this gem to your thread:

Here's some fun for ya's

2005:


Liberty Counsel - Liberty Alert - Print Version

*edited for brevity

True as all that is, the Senate republicans still didn't change the rules and opted for the compromise route. The famous (or infamous) Gang of 14.

I thought democrats lived and died for the compromise. Where is the 2013 version of the Gang of 14, that wishes to work with the other side in a bipartisan way?

Or is all that bluster from democrats about bipartisanship and compromise just a bunch of cynical and disingenuous prattling?

That was tried. Many times.

The republicans had no interest in compromise.

That was not tried because, despite your massive ignorance, the Gang of 14 was not sanctioned by either party. The Gang of 14 was actually a group of moderates that got together to end the use of cloture on nominees and end the threat of the nuclear option. Every single member of that group that is still in the Senate voted against the wishes of Obama yesterday.

Every single one.

Yet, for some reason, you think the Republicans are the bad guys despite the fact that you cannot provide me with a single name of anyone that Obama put up for the court in Iowa.

 

[HenryBHough]

There are NO moderates - only the gutless.