More Republican Obstructionism: Judicial Nominees

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
While Republicans in Congress and elsewhere SEEM to be "putting a new face" on their narrow minded brand of politics, by softening their stance on some flashpoint issues like immigration and an (as of late) photo-op pretense at cooperation and compromise, in the background it's bullheaded "out of spite" business as usual, as indicated by the following article of how the judicial nominee process has been outright stymied by Republican styled obstructionism:

Obama's Judicial Nominees Blocked On All Sides By Senate Republicans

Details from the above:

"It's bad enough that there are 82 vacant federal judge slots around the country, a level so high that many observers have deemed it a crisis situation.
But perhaps even more startling is the fact that of those 82 vacant slots, 61 of them don't even have a nominee."


"...the absence of nominees would appear to be a sign that President Barack Obama is slacking."


"...a closer look at data...reveals the bigger problem is Republican senators quietly refusing to recommend potential judges in the first place."
 

Reg

Superior Member
Cammer
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Posts
8,083
Media
38
Likes
5,661
Points
448
Location
San Antonio (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Oh please. Obama can nominate irrespective of a Senators recommendation. Many times the President has made a nomination outside of the Senators consent or recommendation. Get a life.
 

bar4doug

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,555
Media
0
Likes
625
Points
333
Location
United States
Gender
Male
The process is explained in the article. Read it.

I would do my homework before citing huffpo as an authority.

The article does not explain the process. This one does nicely:
Federal Judicial Nomination Process

Since all parties involved are appointing Article III judges, they want their nominee to win, since the appointment is for life. You can't lose if you don't put anyone up. I would assume both parties are guilty of gumming up the works. Plenty of blame to go around.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
It details the process of how nominations usually come about, and how Senate confirmation votes on Obama's nominees have come after a wait that averaged three times longer than with Bush's.

It also explains the fact that some Republican senators are simply refusing to make even a recommendation, while at the same time claiming that Obama isn't putting up enough nominees.

In short, it REVEALS the usual Republican bullshit.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
It's quite simple. Obama is black. When you cut through all of the Republican BS that's it.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
It's quite simple. Obama is black. When you cut through all of the Republican BS that's it.

It's tempting to think that, but I believe the GOP would be giving Hillary or any other Democratic president the same treatment. They weren't too cooperative with her husband. They're not interested in any form of bipartisanship. They want it all, and are happy to play brick wall until they have it. Fuck public opinion or needs. This is for control.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
They weren't too cooperative with her husband. They're not interested in any form of bipartisanship. They want it all, and are happy to play brick wall until they have it. Fuck public opinion or needs. This is for control.

You are free to believe what you wish I do not concur. What can explain the willingness to put the country in default? And create absolute fucking chaos? Nuclear economic terrorism. The evidence is all around.
 

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
You are free to believe what you wish I do not concur. What can explain the willingness to put the country in default? And create absolute fucking chaos? Nuclear economic terrorism. The evidence is all around.

Your "evidence" is nothing more than several paragraphs of libel.

Apropos that it comes from alterNet(reality)
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
You are free to believe what you wish I do not concur. What can explain the willingness to put the country in default? And create absolute fucking chaos? Nuclear economic terrorism. The evidence is all around.

YES, Sargon, when applied to the whole Obama presidency and everything that has occurred: the election, the comments made about him, the obstructionism and stonewalling every step of the way, and all the rest, THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.

But regarding judicial nominees, after looking at the facts around Clinton's nominations, I would not be able to say that Obama's experience has been markedly different.

I'm compelled to allow "the devil his due" on this particular point. :cool:
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
YES, Sargon, when applied to the whole Obama presidency and everything that has occurred: the election, the comments made about him, the obstructionism and stonewalling every step of the way, and all the rest, THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.

But regarding judicial nominees, after looking at the facts around Clinton's nominations, I would not be able to say that Obama's experience has been markedly different.

I'm compelled to allow "the devil his due" on this particular point. :cool:

Yes if we want to narrow the focus and say they did the same for Clinton well yes they did still the level of vitriol is unparalleled and unmatched. The official position on everything is anti-Obama. Even on things they are for they will flip-flop just to be anti-whateverhispositionis.

Do recall they didn't even want to go along with a tax cut from the party of tax cuts.

Hey, America! Republicans want to raise your taxes
 

lovinglife

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Posts
1,731
Media
100
Likes
3,370
Points
208
Location
Houston (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I want to say a few things:
1) Cornyn is wrong about the Constitution saying anything about district courts. Congress made the district courts through the Constitution.
2) Cornyn is right in that it is the President that makes nominations to the Senate and often seeks advice from the Senators of the state for that nomination.
Federal Judicial Nomination Process

There is no "blocking" involved here outside of maybe a perceived tradition (I am not a senator, so I dont know... all I can go by are the rules). Bill Clinton WAS blocked because he DID nominate people, but they werent able to get through the Republican Senate Judiciary Committee. However, Obama has a Democratic controlled Senate Judiciary Committee... so if he wants to nominate somebody they will get through.