Reply With Quote
A politician that lied? Shocking!
Not really.
“I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period,” said Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) in 2005. But under the Obama Administration, Alexander and his ilk have had a change of heart. Their level of obstructionism keeps reaching new heights.
According to a report [pdf] from the Alliance for Justice [3]:
Of the 105 nominations submitted by President Obama during the first two years of his term, only 62—2 Supreme Court justices, plus 16 courts of appeals and 44 district court judges—were confirmed. That is the smallest percentage of judicial confirmations over the first two years of any presidency in American history.
Judicial vacancies increased from 55 to 97 during President Obama’s first two years, whereas under both President’s Bush and Clinton, vacancies declined.
Senate Republicans used every parliamentary tool they could to obstruct and delay President Obama’s nominees, including placing secret holds on each judicial nominee who reached the Senate floor, even those that had the support of Republican home-state senators. They also denied votes on 13 nominees at the end of the 111th Congress who received no Republican opposition in committee.
Today 53 Obama judicial nominees still have yet to be confirmed by the Senate. Of the 1132 executive and judicial branch nominations submitted to the Senate by President Obama, 223 nominees have yet to receive a vote on the Senate floor, according to White House data [4]. That means that nearly 20 percent of Obama nominees have been blocked by Senate Republicans.
http://www.thenation.com/print/blog/...es-new-heights
A politician that lied? Shocking!
Not really.
Despite boutons' usual lack of tact, this is actually becoming a huge problem in the federal system. Judges already had an overwhelming caseload, but this is making it far worse.
When will liberals stop lying?
Going from a report filed by a self admitted progressive group...
I noticed the lack of details outside of data. I wonder if it's the senate democrats, more focused on other agendas than getting Obama's judges in? Unless I missed it, there wasn't any example of the blocking. Just saying it occurred. Also, only one page containing four paragraphs page 7, has this idea of blockages.
Now, unlike the Boutons, I took the time to look into the two sources for the four paragraphs that he wrote made this thread about. The quote for note 14 has nothing to do with blocking judicial nominees. Before the quote, McConnell is pointing out their failure of blocking attempts. The quote for note 15 is a letter, and I quoted the whole letter. No where does it say they will block his nominees. The closest they say is: "Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee. "
Four paragraphs, page 7 of the report, led: II. Republican Obstructionism Created a Judicial Vacancy Crisis:
They alter the intent with the sources of the two endnotes. Here they are:During the 111th Congress, Republicans implemented a strategy to obstruct President Obama’s judicial nominations, thereby maintaining the Republican dominance of the courts. This was no secret, as Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) brazenly told the New York Times that “I am amused with [Democrats’] comments about obstructionism. . . . I wish we had been able to obstruct more.”[14] The result was to create a judicial vacancy crisis that burdens the judiciary and delays justice for everyday Americans.
Senate Republicans announced their plan at the very beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency. On March 2, 2009, six weeks after he took office, all the Republicans in the Senate signed a letter effectively appropriating to themselves the nominating power of the executive branch by vowing to block nominees whom they did not approve.[15]
Republicans not only blocked judicial nominees, they also blocked a key person who vets nominees for the Obama Administration. Christopher Schroeder, nominated to head the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy, was not confirmed until April 21, 2010, eleven months after he was nominated.
Republican obstructionism had a significant, deleterious effect on the pace and number of judicial confirmations during the 111th Congress. Since the Senate operates largely on the basis of unanimous consent agreements – whereby legislative action takes place only when no Senator objects to that action – a single Senator wishing to halt the flow of governance can stop the process by either objecting to a consent request in person or through a secret hold. This requires time-consuming cloture votes to overcome. Historically, cloture votes have only been necessary for highly controversial nominees to courts of appeals. Instead, Republicans repeatedly denied consent on almost every nomination, including those for district court seats, and regardless of whether the nominee faced opposition in the Judiciary Committee. The same held true for nominees to seats that were judicial emergencies.
14) New Yourk Times; No Reveling for Democrats, Despite Achievements, 8/2/10.
15) Senate.gov:41 Senate Republicans Send Letter To President Obama Urging Consultation On Judicial Nominees, 3/2/09Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, is often assailed by Democrats for blocking the Democratic agenda. He said the results absolved him of that charge.
“I am amused with their comments about obstructionism,” Mr. McConnell said in an interview. “I wish we had been able to obstruct more. They were able to get the health care bill through. They were able to get the stimulus through. They were able to get the financial reform through. These were all major pieces of legislation, and if I would have had enough votes to stop them, I would have.”
Mr. McConnell said, though, that the Democratic victories would come at a price, predicting that the party’s decision to push sweeping measures in the face of public opposition smacked of arrogance and “is sowing the seeds of their potential downfall.”
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We look forward to working with you as you consider nominees for the federal judiciary. Unfortunately, the judicial appointments process has become needlessly acrimonious. We would very much like to improve this process, and we know you would as well. It is in that spirit that we write early on to suggest two steps your Administration can take to achieve that shared goal.
First, in the beginning of his Administration, your predecessor demonstrated his desire to improve the judicial confirmation process by nominating to the circuit courts two of President Clinton’s previous judicial nominees, Judge Barrington Parker to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. It would help change the tone in Washington if your Administration would take the same bipartisan step. Because the last Congress sadly set the modern record for the fewest circuit court confirmations in a President’s final Congress, there are plenty of well-qualified nominees with bipartisan support from whom to choose. For example, Peter Keisler has been praised repeatedly by colleagues in both the public and private sector, Democrats and Republicans, and has earned accolades from major media observers, like The Washington Post. And Judges Glen Conrad and Paul Diamond both enjoyed bipartisan support and have outstanding records on the federal trial bench.
Second, as our Democratic colleagues have emphasized for the last several years, the process of federal appointments is a shared cons utional responsibility. We respect your responsibility to nominate suitable candidates for the federal bench. And as a former colleague, we know you appreciate the Senate’s unique cons utional responsibility to provide or withhold its Advice and Consent on nominations. The principle of senatorial consultation (or senatorial courtesy) is rooted in this special responsibility, and its application dates to the Administration of George Washington. Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged the importance of maintaining this principle, which allows individual senators to provide valuable insights into their cons uents’ qualifications for federal service.
We hope your Administration will consult with us as it considers possible nominations to the federal courts from our states. Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee. Despite press reports that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee now may be considering changing the Committee’s practice of observing senatorial courtesy, we, as a Conference, expect it to be observed, even-handedly and regardless of party affiliation. And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.
Because of the profound impact that life-tenured federal judges can have in our society, the Founders made their appointment a shared cons utional responsibility. We look forward to working with you to discharge this important duty in the best interest of our country.
Sincerely,
All Republican Senators
WC, wouldn't voting on these nominees cons ute advice and consent?
Yes or no.
That's not a yes or no answer. I would normally say yes, but the details in the process are what needs to be changed. The article didn't mention filibusters, but procedure holds which probably mean there is a lack of information that the republican in the committees want before proceeding.
Nancy may as well be in the senate saying "you will know our nominees values after you vote yes on them."
Then they could just vote no.
Lame excuse.
lol probably
Yes the could, democrats would vote yes, and the nominee would be appointed.
Did you intentionally miss my point? If there isn't a proper debate and information before a vote, why is it wrong to hold up the process before a vote?
Have you looked at the senate calendars at all? There is almost no time scheduled for debating judicial nominees.
Thank you for showing us why the Republicans obstruct appointments.
You are a master cherry picker.Thank you for showing us why the Republicans obstruct appointments.
Don't be mad because you inadvertently told the truth.
"No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar."
-Abraham Lincoln
I'm not mad. Just tired or dealing with your sotrry ass.
How about showing me in the senate record a vote to break a filibuster for a judicial nominee.
If not that, show me in the senate record where the obstruction is happening.
Libray of Congress, Thomas
It doesn't have to be in the record, dip .
You're too stupid to figure out how it's done, and angry because you accidentally admitted why it's done.
Both parties do it and both parties are stupid for doing it. You want to cheer for one side for doing it.
If it's not in the record, then isn't it at least plausible the story is nothing but bull ?
It's not plausible for anyone who isn't completely blinded by partisanship.
OK, seems to me the republicans have been real generous with the judicial nominees. Were the democrats ever this nice to president Bush?
111th first session:
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Sonia Sotomayor, of New York, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court ) confirmed 68:31
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation of Gerard E. Lynch, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) confirmed 94:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Jeffrey L. Viken, of South Dakota, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 99:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Roberto A. Lange, of South Dakota, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 100:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Irene Cornelia Berger of West Virginia to be U.S. District Judge. ) confirmed 97:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Andre M. Davis, of Maryland, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ) confirmed 72:16
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Charlene Edwards Honeywell, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida ) confirmed 88:0
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of David F. Hamilton, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit. ) agreed 70:29
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation David F. Hamilton, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit. ) confirmed 59:39
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Jacqueline H. Nguyen, of CA, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 97:0
111th second session:
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Beverly Baldwin Martin, of Georgia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) Confirmed 97:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Rosanna Malouf Peterson, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 89:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit ) confirmed 84:0
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Barbara Milano Keenan, of VA, to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) passed 99:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Barbara Milano Keenan, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit. ) confirmed 99:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation William M. Conley to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin ) confirmed 99:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation O. Rogeriee Thompson, of Rhode Island, to be United States Circuit Judge ) confirmed 98:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Marisa J. Demeo, of D.C., to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of D.C. ) confirmed 66:32
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Thomas I. Vanaskie, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit ) confirmed 77:30
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Denny Chin, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit ) confirmed 98:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Gloria M. Navarro, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 98:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Nancy D. Freudenthal, of Wyoming, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 96:1
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Audrey Goldstein Fleissig, of Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri ) confirmed 90:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Lucy Haeran Koh, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of California ) confirmed 90:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Tanya Walton Pratt, of Indiana, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana ) confirmed 95:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Brian Anthony Jackson, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 96:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Mark A. Goldsmith, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan ) confirmed 89:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Marc T. Treadwell, of Georgia, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia ) confirmed 89:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Gary Scott Feinerman, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District ) confirmed 80:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Sharon Johnson Coleman, of Illinois, to be United States Judge ) confirmed 86:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Elena Kagan of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. ) confirmed 63:37
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Jane Branstetter Stranch, of Tennessee, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ) confirmed 71:21
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Ellen Lipton Hollander, of Maryland, to be United States District Judge ) confirmed 95:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Raymond Joseph Lohier, Jr., of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) confirmed 92:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Benita Y. Pearson, of Ohio to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 56:39
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation William Joseph Martinez, of Colorado, to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado ) confirmed 58:37
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Mary Helen Murgia, of Arizona to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) confirmed 89:0
112th first session:
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Diana Saldana, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 94:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Paul Kinloch Holmes III, of Arkansas, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 95:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Edward J. Davila, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of California ) confirmed 93:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Steve C. Jones, of Georgia, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia ) confirmed 90:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation James E. Shadid, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois ) confirmed 89:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Anthony J. Battaglia, of California, to the be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California ) confirmed 89:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Max Oliver Cogburn, Jr., of North Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 96:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation James Emanuel Boasberg, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 96:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Amy Berman Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 97:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Mae A. D'Agostino, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 88:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Jimmie V. Reyna, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit ) confirmed 86:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation John A. Kronstadt, of California, to be United States District Judge ) confirmed 96:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Kevin Hunter Sharp, of Tennessee, to be United States District Judge ) confirmed 89:0
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of John J. McConnell, Jr. of Rhode Island to be U.S. District Judge ) agreed 63:33
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation John J. McConnell, Jr. of Rhode Island, to be U.S. District Judge ) confirmed 50:44
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Edward Milton Chen, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California ) confirmed 56:42
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Arenda L. Wright Allen, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge ) confirmed 96:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Michael Francis Urbanski, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia ) confirmed 94:0
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Susan L. Carney, of Connecticut, to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) confirmed 71:28
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Goodwin Liu, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit ) cloture rejected 52:43
Of four cloture votes, one is rejected, and the republicans are blocking everything? Give me a break.
Only four filibusters with cloture votes in three sessions so far. That matches the number is president Bush's 2nd congressional session alone. There were 18 in his third session with congress, all rejected! Four out of four rejected in the 4th. Should I go on?
LOL...
You are no doubt the blinded one.
Show me something on record, or else it's meaningless. the democrats can put these out for a floor vote if they want. Instead, they use political hacks like yourself to be useful idiots, agreeing with their propaganda.
Put up or shut up with some evidence.
I just said both parties do it and both parties are stupid for doing it.
I also said obstruction doesn't have to be on the record.
What do you not understand about those sentences, WC.
Let's try to figure out why you are so ignorant here.
Both... there is no comparison.
My God. One filibuster not broken, two that passed were largely party lines, and one even the republicans voting unanimous to end debate.
My friend, there are clear differences between these two parties. Saying both do it is like saying both have to eat.
Of course there is. You merely want to cheer for one side because you are a partisan hack.
Yeah, you slavishly support one and will lie in that effort.My friend, there are clear differences between these two parties.
You realize that statement supports my contention.Saying both do it is like saying both have to eat.
Why do the records only list two failed nominees?
Again, give me some evidence, or be gone.
Because, as I said, it doesn't have to be in the record.
What part of that do you not understand?
How's that not obstructing?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
