GOP Obstructionism Reaches New Heights

[ChumpDumper]

How's that not obstructing?

Because they're Republicans, idiot!

The difference is so clear!

[ElNono]

I also think that letter reeks of cheap blackmail... It's the president's duty to select nominees...

[Wild Cobra]

Because, as I said, it doesn't have to be in the record.

What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that. I also understand that it can be a fabrication. No record is no record.

Why do you blindly trust such propaganda?

The only nominee who had a cloture vote clearly doesn't belong in higher courts.

Roberts Would Swing the Supreme Court to the Right: Goodwin Liu

The other guy, Robert N. Chatigny, was OKed in the judicial committee, but they never place it on the senate calender. Could it be the democrats playing games? Why didn't they set a date? The announcement was also the same time as Liu's:

President Obama Nominates Goodwin Liu for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Judge Robert N. Chatigny for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

[Wild Cobra]

I also think that letter reeks of cheap blackmail... It's the president's duty to select nominees...

Hmmmmm....

What does "advice and consent" mean in the cons ution?

Now comes the senate rules. The key is if the filibuster is used to continue debate, or block.

Remember also, the republicans wanted to change the filibuster rules for confirmations, but the democrats wouldn't have anything to do with it.

[ChumpDumper]

I understand that. I also understand that it can be a fabrication. No record is no record.

Why do you blindly trust such propaganda?

Why do you blindly make up proaganda?

The only nominee who had a cloture vote clearly doesn't belong in higher courts.

Roberts Would Swing the Supreme Court to the Right: Goodwin Liu

According to whom?

You?

The other guy, Robert N. Chatigny, was OKed in the judicial committee, but they never place it on the senate calender. Could it be the democrats playing games? Why didn't they set a date? The announcement was also the same time as Liu's:

President Obama Nominates Goodwin Liu for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Judge Robert N. Chatigny for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Could it be that you are too stupid to see what's going on?

Given your record here. I'm going with that.

Prove me wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Prove me wrong.

I'm still waiting for evidence that the republicans are blocking his nominees. All you have is heresay.

[ElNono]

Hmmmmm....

What does "advice and consent" mean in the cons ution?

I means that they get to choose if the nomination is kosher or not. The senators are fully aware of this (from the letter: We respect your responsibility to nominate suitable candidates for the federal bench.).

Now comes the senate rules. The key is if the filibuster is used to continue debate, or block.

In other words, obstructing the vote.

[Wild Cobra]

Citizens have positive rights for government assistance...

[ChumpDumper]

I'm still waiting for evidence that the republicans are blocking his nominees. All you have is heresay.

I'm still waiting for you to figure out there are other ways to block nominees. Think I'll be waiting a long time since you are so proud of your ignorance.

lol democrats playing games

[ChumpDumper]

Citizens have positive rights for government assistance...

Showing a candidate who is being obstructed by Republicans doesn't help your argument that Republicans aren't obstructing nominees.

You really suck at this.

[Wild Cobra]

In other words, obstructing the vote.

The original intent of the filibuster could never be used to block a vote. I don't know when that changed, but it needs to go back to it's original intent.

Now...

Can you tell me these four filibusters were used to extend debate, or block?

Three of the four were mostly along party lines. One was unanimous to stop debate. The vote that failed cloture for Liu had democrats voting no also.

[Wild Cobra]

Showing a candidate who is being obstructed by Republicans doesn't help your argument that Republicans aren't obstructing nominees.

You really suck at this.

Wow...

I see this went right over your head.

[ElNono]

The original intent of the filibuster could never be used to block a vote. I don't know when that changed, but it needs to go back to it's original intent.

Their intent is clear as a day from the letter you posted (thanks for posting it, btw):

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

They have every right to obstruct as much as they want. That's not really my concern. My concern is, as TheProfessor mentioned earlier in the thread, that these stupid partisan games are starting to substantially affect the judicial.

[Wild Cobra]

Their intent is clear as a day from the letter you posted (thanks for posting it, btw):

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

They have every right to obstruct as much as they want. That's not really my concern. My concern is, as TheProfessor mentioned earlier in the thread, that these stupid partisan games are starting to substantially affect the judicial.

Yes it's clear. They vote no if they disapprove.

[ElNono]

Yes it's clear. They vote no if they disapprove.

There's still 38 nominations pending, 19 already deemed 'non-controversial'.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46262.html

EDIT: That article is from Dec 2010. Don't know if any progress has been made since.

[ElNono]

Here's the full list of pending nominees:

http://judicialnominations.org/pending-nominees

[ChumpDumper]

Wow...

I see this went right over your head.

Not really; more like you don't understand what you are doing.

[Wild Cobra]

There's still 38 nominations pending, 19 already deemed 'non-controversial'.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46262.html

EDIT: That article is from Dec 2010. Don't know if any progress has been made since.

The article says republicans only wanted four blocked. That's hardly being obstructionists like the democrats were with president Bush's nominees.

"Reach new heights"

Can you agree we should stop the bull , and call those on it, who propagate it?

[ChumpDumper]

A top Senate Republican has pledged to block action on several pending judicial nominations until funding for a Charleston port project is approved, leading the White House to intervene in an effort to break the impasse.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters Wednesday that he will block votes on any nominations until he is assured that $40,000 will be devoted to a study related to deepening the Port of Charleston.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...MGXD_blog.html

[boutons_deux]

The Senate, supposedly the more senior and adult vs House of Reps, is a ing disaster, a national disgrace.

Corruption and paralysis, non-stop

[ChumpDumper]

WC, look up the record on Albert Diaz and tell me what stands out to you.

[ElNono]

The article says republicans only wanted four blocked.

No, the article says there's at least 4 they definitely don't want confirmed. If they don't have a problem with the rest, they would just stop blocking the nominations and just vote.

[ChumpDumper]

They only wanted four blocked, but were blocking them all?

They suck at that.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, you keep talking about Dem's record with Bush nominees. Could you provide that record?

[Wild Cobra]

Another judge makes it past the so-called obstructionists:

Michael H. Simon, of Oregon, to be United States District Judge for the District of Oregon