Joe Biden Judicial Nomination Killer!!

[SIXERS24]

Wow that's a lot of judicial nominations blocked!!

Read the Article not the headline!

But that's different right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7841be-dbdf-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

 

[SIXERS24]

Roberts was not alone in being denied a hearing or a vote by Biden. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in 1992 Biden killed the nominations of 32 Bush appointees to the federal bench without giving them so much as a hearing. And that does not count an additional 20 nominations for the federal bench where Biden did not hold hearings that year, which CRS excluded from its count because they reached the Senate “within approximately [four] months before it adjourned.”

 

[The Tradition]

It's a good thing Obama wasn't in the Senate long enough to be the Judiciary Chairman.

 

[SIXERS24]

Liberals not wanting to read this article i guess

 

[dandh]

This is quite telling. As I said the other day, the Democrats are mad because the Republicans are saying they want to play by the Biden Rules. What a bunch of hypocrites the Dems are on this one.

 

[theiacowtipper]

So you agree that the refusal to consider a Supreme Court nominee that was proposed this early in an election cycle is unprecedented? Good we agree. The article does nothing to refute that. Biden's comments on the supreme court were made in June, not February.

Like it or not, Supreme Court nominees are different than appeals court of circuit court nominees. A refusal to consider a nominee has never been done, or at least hasn't been done to my knowledge. Spin it any way you like, but the partisan nature of this Republican Senate (and House for that matter) is unprecedented.

 

[SIXERS24]

Biden’s defenders claim that he made his 1992 remarks about killing a Supreme Court nominee in June of an election year, not February. But some of the nominees Biden killed that election year had been nominated as early as January 1991 — 17 months before the presidential election. And some of the nominees he killed in 1998 had been nominated as early as February 1987 — 16 months before voters went to the polls to choose a new president.

 

[SIXERS24]

Biden’s record of election-year judicial obstruction came to light in 1997, when he tried to force then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms to hold a hearing on the nomination of Massachusetts Gov. William Weld to be U.S. ambassador to Mexico (I was on Helms’s committee staff at the time). When Helms declared Weld’s nomination dead on arrival, Biden and other committee members forced Helms to convene a committee meeting, which they hoped would take up Weld’s nomination. Instead, Helms turned the meeting into a lecture on the “History of Presidential Nominees Not Receiving Confirmation Hearings.” He presented 10 pages of charts prepared by CRS detailing 154 presidential nominations during the previous decade that had been killed without a hearing — including dozens of judicial nominations that Biden had killed.

 

[TJ8869]

So you agree that the refusal to consider a Supreme Court nominee that was proposed this early in an election cycle is unprecedented? Good we agree. The article does nothing to refute that. Biden's comments on the supreme court were made in June, not February.

Like it or not, Supreme Court nominees are different than appeals court of circuit court nominees. A refusal to consider a nominee has never been done, or at least hasn't been done to my knowledge. Spin it any way you like, but the partisan nature of this Republican Senate (and House for that matter) is unprecedented.

You didn't read the article, did you?

 

[joelbc1]

Sixers.....Do you know how many circuit court justices who are also well qualified are waiting for Senate confirmation at this time?
I think the number is currently 42. These are guys appointed by Obama and awaiting confirmation from the GOP led US Senate. This count would include SC, Court of Appeals, District Courts and Specialty Courts.
Try and contain your indignance and (faux) rage.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

Sixers.....Do you know how many circuit court justices who are also well qualified are waiting for Senate confirmation at this time?
I think the number is currently 42. These are guys appointed by Obama and awaiting confirmation from the GOP led US Senate. This count would include SC, Court of Appeals, District Courts and Specialty Courts.
Try and contain your indignance and (faux) rage.

So if the Republicans confirmed a few district court nominees, you wouldn't have any issues with their blocking of a SC nominee?

 

[joelbc1]

So if the Republicans confirmed a few district court nominees, you wouldn't have any issues with their blocking of a SC nominee?

did I say that? I was just pointing out, this shit happens...and the GOP certainly have a well documented history of this also. I think the real problem in this nation, ever since 2000 has been the Legislative branch and not so much the Executive branch. The Congress has just flat-out refused to do its business.

 

[theiacowtipper]

You didn't read the article, did you?

Yes, did you?

 

[dbq hawk 32]

did I say that? I was just pointing out, this shit happens...and the GOP certainly have a well documented history of this also. I think the real problem in this nation, ever since 2000 has been the Legislative branch and not so much the Executive branch. The Congress has just flat-out refused to do its business.

I would support changing the number for a cloture vote in the Senate from 60 to 55... and I would also support changing the requirements for a veto override from 2/3 to 6/10. I think all three branches have played a role in the dysfunction, and it honestly makes me wonder if a parliamentary system with more than two parties isn't a better option.

 

[joelbc1]

I would support changing the number for a cloture vote in the Senate from 60 to 55... and I would also support changing the requirements for a veto override from 2/3 to 6/10. I think all three branches have played a role in the dysfunction, and it honestly makes me wonder if a parliamentary system with more than two parties isn't a better option.

The Party in power loves these rules.
To me, the Executive branch gets license because of the way he is chosen....He/she gets to set the table. Used to be that way...then Nixon f'ed it up for all who followed. Right now you have a dysfunctional Congress.....and they have the "checks and balances" to screw up the whole works...and they have. Honestly...when you have a farmer witn no formal legal training heading a committee that vets/choses judges and writes complex law, you're asking for problems. The GOP leadership knew exactly what they were doing when they placed Chuck on the Judiciary Committee. If you want to wax up something big time, put someone in charge who has no idea how it works. Chuck is politically savvy, no doubt. He just isn't any kind of a legal mind. I like Perry Mason, but if I was charged with a felony, I'd hire an attorney. Not a farmer.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

The Party in power loves these rules.
To me, the Executive branch gets license because of the way he is chosen....He/she gets to set the table.

I could be tempted to agree, if the president was chosen by popular vote. The president isn't. And the only positions in the executive that are elected are the president and vice president. On the other hand, the entire legislative branch is elected by popular vote and is responsible to the public every two years for the house and six for the senate (not four). There is a reason the framers gave the legislative the most power, then the executive, and then finally the completely un-elected judiciary.

As to the rest of your post, I will just say that it is only the democrat party that strictly adheres to the seniority rule to committee assignments. Republicans in the Senate use a hybrid system, and Republicans in the house don't use it at all.

 

[TJ8869]

Yes, did you?

I did. Do you have any thoughts on Biden shitcanning dozens of judicial nominees during election years? I'm specifically interested in your thoughts on Biden burying the nomination of future Chief Justice John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which is widely regarded as the most powerful court in America after the SCOTUS.

 

[joelbc1]

I could be tempted to agree, if the president was chosen by popular vote. The president isn't. And the only positions in the executive that are elected are the president and vice president. On the other hand, the entire legislative branch is elected by popular vote and is responsible to the public every two years for the house and six for the senate (not four). There is a reason the framers gave the legislative the most power, then the executive, and then finally the completely un-elected judiciary.

As to the rest of your post, I will just say that it is only the democrat party that strictly adheres to the seniority rule to committee assignments. Republicans in the Senate use a hybrid system, and Republicans in the house don't use it at all.

Are you saying it was a GOP conspiracy to put Grassley in as Chair of the Judiciary Committee? Keeeerist......my point has been made!
If you want something to FAIL,. put a person with no expertise in the position to guide the committee. Failure and dysfunction will be achieved.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

Are you saying it was a GOP conspiracy to put Grassley in as Chair of the Judiciary Committee? Keeeerist......my point has been made!
If you want something to FAIL,. put a person with no expertise in the position to guide the committee. Failure and dysfunction will be achieved.

No, I'm saying the GOP places limits on how long a senator can be on a committee in the senate. Because of this Grassley has to move around. I very much doubt the judicial committee would be his first choice.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I did. Do you have any thoughts on Biden shitcanning dozens of judicial nominees during election years? I'm specifically interested in your thoughts on Biden burying the nomination of future Chief Justice John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which is widely regarded as the most powerful court in America after the SCOTUS.

My point is that he did not bury a selection to the Supreme Court. Which is the most powerful court. The Eepublicans have chosen to go down an unprecedently partisan path. Perhaps Biden et al took a few steps, Republicans have gone much farther.

 

[The Tradition]

My point is that he did not bury a selection to the Supreme Court. Which is the most powerful court. The Eepublicans have chosen to go down an unprecedently partisan path. Perhaps Biden et al took a few steps, Republicans have gone much farther.

Unprecedented? FDR tried to increase the number of justices so as to pack the court full of his own people. There's always been partisanship when it comes to this topic.

 

[TJ8869]

My point is that he did not bury a selection to the Supreme Court. Which is the most powerful court. The Eepublicans have chosen to go down an unprecedently partisan path. Perhaps Biden et al took a few steps, Republicans have gone much farther.

So far the only thing Republicans have done is exactly the same thing Democrats have already done - make threats.

 

[theiacowtipper]

So far the only thing Republicans have done is exactly the same thing Democrats have already done - make threats.

Agreed. We will see.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Unprecedented? FDR tried to increase the number of justices so as to pack the court full of his own people. There's always been partisanship when it comes to this topic.

Should have said unprecedented in our lifetimes.

 

[joelbc1]

Unprecedented? FDR tried to increase the number of justices so as to pack the court full of his own people. There's always been partisanship when it comes to this topic.

So what? In retrospect, FDR was probably correct with his instincts. Those days were difficult times and extreme measures were needed. The one thing about FDR that all of us need to respect is that he was willing to try anything to get the economy on a recovery footing.

 

[The Tradition]

So what? In retrospect, FDR was probably correct with his instincts. Those days were difficult times and extreme measures were needed. The one thing about FDR that all of us need to respect is that he was willing to try anything to increase his power.

FTFY