Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[bripat9643]

The President is appointing judges?

Since when has he had that power?

He's had the authority for 250 years, moron.

Imagine that..

and why should a minority party have the power to block him from doing a duty that has been in effect for 250 years?

Because the majority often acts stupidly, nimrod.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The President is appointing judges?

Since when has he had that power?

He's had the authority for 250 years, moron.

Imagine that..

and why should a minority party have the power to block him from doing a duty that has been in effect for 250 years?

it was a minority that gave us this great nation

 

[P@triot]

Republicans have filibustered almost as many of Obama's nominees as all the other presidents combined.

That would be because Barack Obama is an unhinged marxist ideologue who has admitted to hating America and everything it stands for (daddy brainwashed him since birth that America was "the great imperialist"). It's the Republican's job to protect this nation from him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama just committed an unprecedented tyranny.

This represents a ridiculous power grab from one of the most tyrannical administrations in US History.

Let me ask you a question:

If the party in power in both the presidency and the Senate should not have the right to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

Please be specific and explain your reasoning in detail.

I'm happy to answer your question [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION] (after all, I've been educating you for years on this board - I feel it is my civic duty since you are completely ignorant of your nations government, it's laws, it's Constitution, and it's history ).

A key goal of the framers was to create a Senate differently constituted from the House so it would be less subject to popular passions and impulses. "The use of the Senate," wrote James Madison in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, "is to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch." An oft-quoted story about the "coolness" of the Senate involves George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who was in France during the Constitutional Convention. Upon his return, Jefferson visited Washington and asked why the Convention delegates had created a Senate. "Why did you pour that tea into your saucer?" asked Washington. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," responded Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

And this is exactly why Obama and the Dumbocrats (such as yourself) hate the Senate and it's rules. It prevents the majority from fast-tracking this nation into disaster (which is what ignorant Dumbocrat policy does). The entire intent of our founders was to create a slow, methodical legislation process so that impulsive ignorance (ie Dumbocrat policy...can you say Obamacare?) did not destroy what so much blood was shed to create.

Any questions?

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Legislative Process > Senate Legislative Process

Not a word of what you said answered my question. I suggest you reread it.

 

[Sallow]

So, just because Obama doesn't get to appoint the judges he wants allows him and his party to justify throwing 225 years of legislative history in the trash? Oh well, this will bite them in the ass. Democrats in Washington are notorious for not thinking things through, i.e. Obamacare.

The filibuster is not in the Constitution and was "invented" by Aaron Burr.

Remember him?

He killed founding father Alexander Hamilton.

It's too bad he didn't do it a lot earlier.

I can see why you admire Burr. After all..he did serve with Conservative Hero Benedict Arnold during the Revolutionary war and was hated by George Washington.

 

[Sallow]

He's had the authority for 250 years, moron.

Imagine that..

and why should a minority party have the power to block him from doing a duty that has been in effect for 250 years?

Um, you do realize for 250 years the "minority power" had the power to block him as well, don't you?

Of course not...what the hell am I saying? You're a willfully ignorant Dumbocrat who has never seen the Constitution!

Apparently neither have you.

The filibuster is not in the Constitution and the Constitution prescribes majority rule in Congress.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm shocked at you Democrats....If the Republicans had pulled this...YOU'D BE screaming bloody murder...

are you so into winning you don't see what abuse this is and is giving a Party and President total POWER over who they put in positions of POWER over you?

No wonder Obama sold you on Transforming our country...He saw with voters like you the time was ripe

Who should have the power to appoint and approve judges?

 

[rightwinger]

He's had the authority for 250 years, moron.

Imagine that..

and why should a minority party have the power to block him from doing a duty that has been in effect for 250 years?

Because the majority often acts stupidly, nimrod.

and a minority doesn't?

 

[P@triot]

Like everything else, the filibuster "nuclear option" illustrates what a hypocritical, lying, wavering, partisan hack piece of shit Obama really is:

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yet another thread on this topic was called for because?

It beats talking about the 5MM who lost their health insurance because of Obama and the Dems

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind, the Right called it 'tyranny' when the Democrats HAD 60 votes in the Senate.

The Right's reaction to this is their typical mindless, irrational, knee jerk bitching.

They live a fantasy world where they think everything that happens in government ought to be in some sort of heads we win tails you lose framework;

they have a harebrained scheme for every situation that just happens to favor the Right.

 

[Darkwind]

So, just because Obama doesn't get to appoint the judges he wants allows him and his party to justify throwing 225 years of legislative history in the trash? Oh well, this will bite them in the ass. Democrats in Washington are notorious for not thinking things through, i.e. Obamacare.

Actually, they know exactly what they are doing. Getting as much power as they can before they are kicked to the curb...........Which eventually they will be..............

This has happened before in our history. They were so hated at one point because of their policies that they started calling themselves Liberals instead of Progressives. Now they tend to call themselves Progressives as Liberal becomes the bad word. It just hasn't gotten to the point that the people realize the left's ultimate goals yet. The people in this country are not so well informed, and IGNORANCE IS BLISS TO THE STATIST MACHINE.

If Republicans have any decency next year, they will restore the filibuster and not exploit an advantage given to them foolishly by the other side. Play the bigger man here. I mean they'll be no better than the Democrats if they do such a thing. This can be easily undone in a heartbeat.

No

 

[P@triot]

Imagine that..

and why should a minority party have the power to block him from doing a duty that has been in effect for 250 years?

Um, you do realize for 250 years the "minority power" had the power to block him as well, don't you?

Of course not...what the hell am I saying? You're a willfully ignorant Dumbocrat who has never seen the Constitution!

Apparently neither have you.

The filibuster is not in the Constitution and the Constitution prescribes majority rule in Congress.

Where did I say that it was in the Constitution?!? Stating the fact that RW has proven over and over to be ignorant of this nations Constitution is independent of the filibuster discussion chief. Lack reading comprehension much junior?

Hey, I know, why don't you tell us again how the Constitution is (and I quote here) "NOT the law, and has NEVER been law, but just a 'framework' for law"?

To this day, that remains the cutest display of profound Dumbocrat ignorance ever witnessed!

 

[rightwinger]

This is all a natural evolution of our political system.

How does one deal with a "Party of No"?
A party intent on halting the legislative process until some unknown time when they regain power? Should we just lay down and allow Government to cease to function because of temper tantrums from a minority party?

Those temper tantrums have led to a shutting down of government, they have threatened to default on our debt payments, they have blocked an unprecidented number of presidential appointmens leaving leader positions in key agencies unfilled and judgeships vacant

Democrats are showing that they are no longer willing to give in to a child who harms this country just because they can. They forced Republicans hands during the shutdown, used Executive action and have now restricted filibuster

Republicans are overplaying a weak hand and are now paying a price

 

[P@triot]

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

[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]

 

[Sallow]

Um, you do realize for 250 years the "minority power" had the power to block him as well, don't you?

Of course not...what the hell am I saying? You're a willfully ignorant Dumbocrat who has never seen the Constitution!

Apparently neither have you.

The filibuster is not in the Constitution and the Constitution prescribes majority rule in Congress.

Where did I say that it was in the Constitution?!? Stating the fact that RW has proven over and over to be ignorant of this nations Constitution is independent of the filibuster discussion chief. Lack reading comprehension much junior?

Hey, I know, why don't you tell us again how the Constitution is (and I quote here) "NOT the law, and has NEVER been law, but just a 'framework' for law"?

To this day, that remains the cutest display of profound Dumbocrat ignorance ever witnessed!

Read your own post.

 

[P@triot]

This is all a natural evolution of our political system.

How does one deal with a "Party of No"?
A party intent on halting the legislative process until some unknown time when they regain power? Should we just lay down and allow Government to cease to function because of temper tantrums from a minority party?

Those temper tantrums have led to a shutting down of government, they have threatened to default on our debt payments, they have blocked an unprecidented number of presidential appointmens leaving leader positions in key agencies unfilled and judgeships vacant

Democrats are showing that they are no longer willing to give in to a child who harms this country just because they can. They forced Republicans hands during the shutdown, used Executive action and have now restricted filibuster

Republicans are overplaying a weak hand and are now paying a price

[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]

 

[billyerock1991]

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>

watch he will have that all done by next Tuesday ...

 

[Stephanie]

[ame=http://youtu.be/EkXjYohzAOY]Nuclear Option (Reconciliation) 2005 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people are incapable of common sense. The Senate could go for a decade or more without either party having a supermajority;

the Republicans have proven they are willing to block judges indefinitely, so if the Democrats had 41 to 49 Senators, they could return the favor by blocking a Republican president's appointments indefinitely.

10 or 20 years could pass without any judges being apppointed, despite having the 51% or more votes to pass.

Who thinks that is how our Constitution is supposed to work?