President Obama nominating three judges to DC appeals court

[Craig234]

On June 5, President Obama is nominating three judges to the three openings on the DC appeals court (8 of 11 positions are filled; four appointed by each party).

Republicans have tried a variety of obstructionism to block President Obama from appointing these judges, and many others.

Under the first President Bush, the processing time for the Senate to process a nominee was 8 days; under Obama IIRC that's up to something like 138 days.

And that's not counting the filibusters.

Rep. Sen. Grassley has even introduced a bill to change the size of the court from 11 to 8 to prevent President Obama from filling the seats.

One issue is the outrageous obstructionism. Democrats have filibustered judicial nominations before - but generally with a pretty strong case, such as one judge now on that circuit who was rated 'unqualified' by the bar. (If the point Bush appointed some very poor judges is in question, I need only two words to prove it - Harriet Meiers). Obama's picks are well respected and qualified, and those are not the reasons for opposition.

(Surprisingly, while many are blocked, one appointment to this circuit was approved unanimously earlier this year).

A second issue is that the Democrats are indicating they are willing to eliminate the filibuster for at least judicial nominations of Republicans filibuster these nominations.

Republican leader McConnell said that Democrats are treating 'advise and consent' as if it means sit down, shut up and approve immediately - which is nonsense, as Republicans have every opportunity to stand up, speak out, and vote no - the only thing they're being told no to is abusing the filibuster to block nominees for years for political reasons.

Obama has other blocked nominations as well - he can't get an IRS commissioner approved, Republicans have indicated they'll not allow anyone to be appointed to head a consumer protection agency they don't like, the ATF has never had a head approved since Senate approval was snuck in a bill in 2006, and so on.

 

[Craig234]

Here's a clip from Steve Kornacki and guests discussing the nominations.

One topic they cover are some of the rulings that the Republicans on the court have handed down against Obama.

Republicans' main goal seems to be to 'save the seats' for a Republican president.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/up/52073981#52073981

 

[EagleKeeper]

So, you have a problem with the Republicans obeying the rules for approving nomination?

Understandable.

Given the quality of the present IRS management under Obama's leadership; anything that Obama suggests right now is going to be shot down.

He should not even bother putting forward such effort until the house of ill repute is cleaned and sterilized.

He set precedence with Timothy Geithner and let it snowball from there.

 

[fskimospy]

So, you have a problem with the Republicans obeying the rules for approving nomination?

Understandable.

Given the quality of the present IRS management under Obama's leadership; anything that Obama suggests right now is going to be shot down.

He should not even bother putting forward such effort until the house of ill repute is cleaned and sterilized.

He set precedence with Timothy Geithner and let it snowball from there.

What sense does that make? You think Obama shouldn't staff the second most important court in the country until an unrelated agency meets your standards? That's baffling. What other constitutional duties should the President refuse to undertake? Exactly what do you need Obama to do in regards to the IRS before continuing to govern?

The deal that Democrats and Republicans made a few years ago about the whole 'nuclear option' has clearly been broken by the Republicans. The promise was to filibuster judicial nominees only in 'extraordinary circumstances', and I can't possibly see how their conduct has reflected that. If only one side abides by an agreement, there's no point to the agreement.

The next time there is a Republican president and senate I have no doubt they will eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, if not altogether so the Democrats should just do it now and get it over with. Then, they should nominate and fill literally every single judicial vacancy in the entire country. Right now the Republicans don't see any price for being obstructionist, and sometimes you need to break out the newspaper and give them a few whacks to remind them that there can be.

 

[nehalem256]

Under the first President Bush, the processing time for the Senate to process a nominee was 8 days; under Obama IIRC that's up to something like 178 days.

Why are you making a comparison to the first Bush instead of the second?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The next time there is a Republican president and senate I have no doubt they will eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, if not altogether so the Democrats should just do it now and get it over with. Then, they should nominate and fill literally every single judicial vacancy in the entire country. Right now the Republicans don't see any price for being obstructionist, and sometimes you need to break out the newspaper and give them a few whacks to remind them that there can be.

Yes, well, that would require the senate Democrats to grow a spine and/or brain, and it's been clear for many years that that is never going to happen.

They deserve what they are getting, because they had the means to prevent it, and chose not to exercise the option.

 

[ivwshane]

So, you have a problem with the Republicans obeying the rules for approving nomination?

Understandable.

Given the quality of the present IRS management under Obama's leadership; anything that Obama suggests right now is going to be shot down.

He should not even bother putting forward such effort until the house of ill repute is cleaned and sterilized.

He set precedence with Timothy Geithner and let it snowball from there.

Ah that makes sense, instead of saying "yes" or "no" to a nominee they should just draw out the process so nothing gets done or nothing changes or so things get really backed up.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Yes, well, that would require the senate Democrats to grow a spine and/or brain, and it's been clear for many years that that is never going to happen.

They deserve what they are getting, because they had the means to prevent it, and chose not to exercise the option.

Agreed. Reid is a coward. The democrats don't have to become as reckless and irresponsible as Republicans have, but they are unable to advance much of their agenda because they allow themselves to be bullied.

 

[Craig234]

So, you have a problem with the Republicans obeying the rules for approving nomination?

Understandable.

No.

So you have a problem not misrepresenting what I said?

Understandable.

The "rules" include using the filibuster on nominees only for 'extreme cases'.

Given the quality of the present IRS management under Obama's leadership; anything that Obama suggests right now is going to be shot down.

First, he's still president, and has the obligation to do things.

Second, nothing about the IRS reflects on Obama on anything like this anyway. It's not like we're talking about Nixon getting caught abusing his power.

Third, Republicans don't need an IRS excuse to be completely obstructionist.

He set precedence with Timothy Geithner and let it snowball from there.

Now what are you talking about with him? I'm scared to ask. There are reasons progressives object to him.

Regardless, anything to do with Geithner has nothing to do with these appointees.

 

[Craig234]

Agreed. Reid is a coward. The democrats don't have to become as reckless and irresponsible as Republicans have, but they are unable to advance much of their agenda because they allow themselves to be bullied.

That's not so much the issue as recognizing the next time we have a Republican president and Senate - like we did less than a decade ago - they'd be powerless against extremely bad nominees. The issue is that there is a legitimate role to not let the simple majority go crazy with terrible appointments - while not letting the minority block almost every single appointment for political reasons. It's not easy to do both, when one party will abuse whatever the rules are.

I blamed Reid harshly for not supporting the filibuster reform before, but reports are he did not have even a simple majority, and so it makes sense in that case.

There are some democrats - like Carl Levin and Dianne Feinstein - who opposed changing it for whatever reasons, such as concern for the need for some filibusters.

 

[ivwshane]

Why are you making a comparison to the first Bush instead of the second?

Under Bush II it was a delay of 35 days, under Obama its around 140. Does that help or hurt the OP's point.

 

[Craig234]

Under Bush II it was a delay of 35 days, under Obama its around 140. Does that help or hurt the OP's point.

The clip I linked has a chart showing it going from 8 under the first Bush, to higher under Clinton with 18 days, to higher under Bush 2 - 35 days.

To make clear how fast it has been done in the past, I noted the shortest 8 days under the first Bush. Going from 8 or 35 to 138 is the same point.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not so much the issue as recognizing the next time we have a Republican president and Senate - like we did less than a decade ago - they'd be powerless against extremely bad nominees. The issue is that there is a legitimate role to not let the simple majority go crazy with terrible appointments - while not letting the minority block almost every single appointment for political reasons. It's not easy to do both, when one party will abuse whatever the rules are.

I blamed Reid harshly for not supporting the filibuster reform before, but reports are he did not have even a simple majority, and so it makes sense in that case.

There are some democrats - like Carl Levin and Dianne Feinstein - who opposed changing it for whatever reasons, such as concern for the need for some filibusters.

That's the whole point though. If somehow Reid's choice not to abolish the filibuster in this Congress meant that a future Republican administration/Senate wouldn't I think that it could have merit. I bet that the Republicans will remove filibusters on nominees the minute it becomes inconvenient to them in the future though, so this is pointless.

I fully expect Democrats and Harry Reid to be SHOCKED when it happens, too.

 

[Craig234]

That's the whole point though. If somehow Reid's choice not to abolish the filibuster in this Congress meant that a future Republican administration/Senate wouldn't I think that it could have merit. I bet that the Republicans will remove filibusters on nominees the minute it becomes inconvenient to them in the future though, so this is pointless.

I fully expect Democrats and Harry Reid to be SHOCKED when it happens, too.

Turning that around, if you assume Republicans will do it, it removes that reason for not doing it now, but I don't think everyone agrees on that.

Republicans threatened it under Bush in very different circumstances - not when almost every nominee was filibustered like they are now, but when in a large number of terrible nominees, Democrats selected four that were the worst of the worst and blocked them - and Republicans objected to that as some terrible obstructionism.

But in that conflict, Republicans backed off the reform - albeit as I recall with Democrats allowing even those terrible judges to go through.

You might be right, but I think this is largely based on the expectation of Democrats having the filibuster when they're in the minority.

I suspect you're right - but this reform would take that blood off the Republicans' hands.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's the whole point though. If somehow Reid's choice not to abolish the filibuster in this Congress meant that a future Republican administration/Senate wouldn't I think that it could have merit. I bet that the Republicans will remove filibusters on nominees the minute it becomes inconvenient to them in the future though, so this is pointless.

I fully expect Democrats and Harry Reid to be SHOCKED when it happens, too.

Yes, we went through this all at the time.

By way of metaphor, the GOP is the attack dog in the back yard and the Democrats are the fools who keep thinking that maybe this time they can open the gate and not get mauled. At some point you have to accept that the dog is what it is, and start to blame the human for not learning from history.

 

[fskimospy]

Turning that around, if you assume Republicans will do it, it removes that reason for not doing it now, but I don't think everyone agrees on that.

Republicans threatened it under Bush in very different circumstances - not when almost every nominee was filibustered like they are now, but when in a large number of terrible nominees, Democrats selected four that were the worst of the worst and blocked them - and Republicans objected to that as some terrible obstructionism.

But in that conflict, Republicans backed off the reform - albeit as I recall with Democrats allowing even those terrible judges to go through.

You might be right, but I think this is largely based on the expectation of Democrats having the filibuster when they're in the minority.

I suspect you're right - but this reform would take that blood off the Republicans' hands.

The Republicans won't care that the blood is on their hands. They will (correctly) assume that people either won't care at all, or will care only very briefly. Either way, it won't matter.

And what are the Democrats going to do? Threaten to make the Senate dysfunctional? Nobody will believe them.

 

[Craig234]

The Republicans won't care that the blood is on their hands. They will (correctly) assume that people either won't care at all, or will care only very briefly. Either way, it won't matter.

And what are the Democrats going to do? Threaten to make the Senate dysfunctional? Nobody will believe them.

Add to that that the Republicans are master of crying like babies when the slightest bit of what they do is done back to them.

If they had power and Democrats did half the filibusters the Republicans are doing, it'd be a major news story night after night about Democrats destroying the country.

It's not just that they 'cry like babies', it's that they're far better with the media. That's partly because they have their own media system that gets stories started with a large percentage of the population (see the 71% of Republicans saying Benghazi is the worst scandal in American history, or Hilary's big drop in approval ratings over it, which is their political goal in large part).

They know well whether it's saying 9/11Saddam 9/11Saddam 9/11Saddam 9/11Saddam or Obamascandal Obamascandal Obamascandal Obamascandal that they get a lot of people believing whatever they say with 'the big lie' of repeating that message - one they agree on largely at a weekly meeting every Wednesday morning of doezns of right-wing political, media and related leaders to decide what the 'talking point agenda' for the week is.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/grover-norquist-soul-new-machine

In fact, the Republicans will use that move by the Democrats to erase all their history of abuse, claiming it's the Democrats who are the radicals, throwing out decades of Senate tradition to be the tyrants they are and force through what they want, denying the Republicans any chance to say anything (look at McConnell this week calling Obama 'court packing' for appointing nominess to court seats open for years).

It's not about who's right as much in public opinion as much as who is loudest.

 

[Brainonska511]

In fact, the Republicans will use that move by the Democrats to erase all their history of abuse, claiming it's the Democrats who are the radicals, throwing out decades of Senate tradition to be the tyrants they are and force through what they want, denying the Republicans any chance to say anything (look at McConnell this week calling Obama 'court packing' for appointing nominess to court seats open for years).

I like their calls about it being 'court packing' yet at the same time, they are calling for moving those open seats to other circuit courts (to effectively keep the DC appeals court leaning right, and in a sense, 'packing it' with conservatives)

 

[Craig234]

I like their calls about it being 'court packing' yet at the same time, they are calling for moving those open seats to other circuit courts (to effectively keep the DC appeals court leaning right, and in a sense, 'packing it' with conservatives)

Exactly. Not only do they want to keep as few Democrat appointees on it as possible, but all the extra work is going to retired judges, all of whom are Republicans, reportedly.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I like their calls about it being 'court packing' yet at the same time, they are calling for moving those open seats to other circuit courts (to effectively keep the DC appeals court leaning right, and in a sense, 'packing it' with conservatives)

Yes.. that's called "playing the game to win", a concept the Democrats seem oblivious to.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So, you have a problem with the Republicans obeying the rules for approving nomination?

Understandable.

No.

So you have a problem not misrepresenting what I said?

Understandable.

Then why are you complaining about the issue of nominations. It is not supposed to be a rubber stamp

The "rules" include using the filibuster on nominees only for 'extreme cases'.
Where is such stated on how/when a filibuster is supposed to be used

Given the quality of the present IRS management under Obama's leadership; anything that Obama suggests right now is going to be shot down.

First, he's still president, and has the obligation to do things.

Second, nothing about the IRS reflects on Obama on anything like this anyway. It's not like we're talking about Nixon getting caught abusing his power.

Third, Republicans don't need an IRS excuse to be completely obstructionist.

He set precedence with Timothy Geithner and let it snowball from there.

Now what are you talking about with him? I'm scared to ask. There are reasons progressives object to him.

Regardless, anything to do with Geithner has nothing to do with these appointees.
You brought up the issue of the IRS appointee.
Geithner was the boss of the Treasury - the IRS falls under him.
Lead by example - Geithner was a poor example.
The IRS leadership followed his disregard fiscal responsibility.

w/ respect to the IRS appointee:
Given the scrutiny that the IRS is presently under; and all the muck being found under the stones turned over; anyone appointed to the position will bear the burden of explaining what is unexplainable.

Maybe letting the professionals handle the IRS instead of a political appointee will do that agency some good for a year or two.

Clean up their act and then put in a political lapdog.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yes.. that's called "playing the game to win", a concept the Democrats seem oblivious to.

If you can not control the throne - become the power behind the throne and let the figure head think that there is no puppet.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If you can not control the throne - become the power behind the throne and let the figure head think that there is no puppet.

You mean like passing dozens of ACA repeal bills knowing that they will never be signed into law? Yeah, because John Boehner is such a strong leader himself.

Neither party has complete control. The difference is that when the GOP has a majority, they don't allow the Democrats to stop them from what they want to do, while the opposite is no longer the case.

 

[chucky2]

What's the problem with these nominees that it's taking so long to get them voted on? Are they so out there that much investigation needs to be done or what?

 

[Craig234]

What's the problem with these nominees that it's taking so long to get them voted on? Are they so out there that much investigation needs to be done or what?

It's pure obstructinism - Republicans want to keep the court as Republican as they can.

In typical Obama fashion, three of the four (one was confirmed) are Bush officials.