Republicans started the war over confirmations to Federal Courts

[pjhawk]

There has ALWAYS been a political component to appts/confirmations of judges to all the different levels of the federal courts, but this politicization of the process went to a hyper-political level when Barack Obama took office in 2009. Republicans engaged in every tactic possible while in the minority in the Senate to slow/stop Obama appts (blue slip, filibuster, extended confirmation process, etc etc)--which culminated in Reid invoking the "nuclear option" in 2013 for non-Supreme court nominations at the point where Republicans were basically completely shutting down the process.

Once in the majority in 2015, Republicans did essentially shut down the judicial confirmation process.

Of course, with control of the Presidency and the Senate from 2017 onward Republicans eliminated all the previous constraints on the confirmation process (ALL OF THEM--filibuster, blue slip, etc etc) and have been confirming new federal judges at record numbers and a record pace (their delaying tactics throughout the Obama era left large numbers of federal judge openings when Trump entered office).

Dems are justified in packing the courts or whatever other ameliorations that are necessary vis a vis the federal courts to rectify the situation created by Republicans since Obama took office.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

There has ALWAYS been a political component to appts/confirmations of judges to all the different levels of the federal courts, but this politicization of the process went to a hyper-political level when Barack Obama took office in 2009. Republicans engaged in every tactic possible while in the minority in the Senate to slow/stop Obama appts (blue slip, filibuster, extended confirmation process, etc etc)--which culminated in Reid invoking the "nuclear option" in 2013 for non-Supreme court nominations at the point where Republicans were basically completely shutting down the process.

Once in the majority in 2015, Republicans did essentially shut down the judicial confirmation process.

Of course, with control of the Presidency and the Senate from 2017 onward Republicans eliminated all the previous constraints on the confirmation process (ALL OF THEM--filibuster, blue slip, etc etc) and have been confirming new federal judges at record numbers and a record pace (their delaying tactics throughout the Obama era left large numbers of federal judge openings when Trump entered office).

Dems are justified in packing the courts or whatever other ameliorations that are necessary vis a vis the federal courts to rectify the situation created by Republicans since Obama took office.

If they confirm a replacement before Jan 20 I agree with packing the SCOTUS. If they hold off than I might consider holding off as well.

 

[TJ8869]

Lol. History started in 2009.

 

[pablow]

Maybe you cry babies should win some elections.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Maybe you cry babies should win some elections.

Maybe we should determine elections by who gets the most votes.

Maybe our representation in congress should be entirely proportional to the population voting for them.

And given that the right was crying about Obama wearing a tan suit, I'm not sure they should be throwing stones here.

 

[your_master5]

Maybe we should determine elections by who gets the most votes.

Maybe our representation in congress should be entirely proportional to the population voting for them.

And given that the right was crying about Obama wearing a tan suit, I'm not sure they should be throwing stones here.

Well that's not the current law, so you're gonna have to work with what you got right? Give reps voter id laws and libs can get removal of electoral college. Win win

 

[hawkland14]

Well that's not the current law, so you're gonna have to work with what you got right? Give reps voter id laws and libs can get removal of electoral college. Win win

My goodness what a bunch petulant children some of the leftists have become. Win some elections and then do whatever you want. Heck pack it with 25 justices. Instead of whining get out and vote. It shouldn't be that hard to defeat a reality tv star.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Well that's not the current law, so you're gonna have to work with what you got right? Give reps voter id laws and libs can get removal of electoral college. Win win

As long as a person can get a free ID from the state and there are no attempts to prevent people from getting those ID's. I am ok with that. I honestly am in favor of voter ID's when managed properly.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

My goodness what a bunch petulant children some of the leftists have become. Win some elections and then do whatever you want. Heck pack it with 25 justices. Instead of whining get out and vote. It shouldn't be that hard to defeat a reality tv star.

Well if we are going to go without principles I would suggest that and making every tiny inhabited island + DC that we own into it's own state.

As I said that's by my count 14 new Dem states, 18 new Dem house reps, 28 new Dem senators and 46 Democratic electoral votes.

That would effectively end Republicans ever capturing the senate or the presidency in the near future. After a good decade of that though because I am magnanimous I would offer a constitutional convention to make the presidency a ranked choice popular vote and make our representation in congress proportional.

 

[hawkland14]

Well if we are going to go without principles I would suggest that and making every tiny inhabited island + DC that we own into it's own state.

As I said that's by my count 14 new Dem states, 18 new Dem house reps, 28 new Dem senators and 46 Democratic electoral votes.

Sure that would be politics. And the same cycle will start over in the opposite direction. Republicans will cry foul, just like Dems have for four years and Democrats will go back and say look at what Republicans did four years under Trump. This is politics and until the system is completely blown up its never going to change. Both parties suck. This isn't hard.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Right now, a President who received less votes than his opponent and who said a Justice should not be replaced in an election year, backed by 53 Senators (who received less votes than the other 47 Senators), and 17 of whom previously said they wouldn’t replace a Justice in an election year, are about to put a third Justice on the Supreme Court.

I’m certain if the roles were reversed, cons would be fine with it.

 

[Democratic Nole]

There has ALWAYS been a political component to appts/confirmations of judges to all the different levels of the federal courts, but this politicization of the process went to a hyper-political level when Barack Obama took office in 2009. Republicans engaged in every tactic possible while in the minority in the Senate to slow/stop Obama appts (blue slip, filibuster, extended confirmation process, etc etc)--which culminated in Reid invoking the "nuclear option" in 2013 for non-Supreme court nominations at the point where Republicans were basically completely shutting down the process.

Once in the majority in 2015, Republicans did essentially shut down the judicial confirmation process.

Of course, with control of the Presidency and the Senate from 2017 onward Republicans eliminated all the previous constraints on the confirmation process (ALL OF THEM--filibuster, blue slip, etc etc) and have been confirming new federal judges at record numbers and a record pace (their delaying tactics throughout the Obama era left large numbers of federal judge openings when Trump entered office).

Dems are justified in packing the courts or whatever other ameliorations that are necessary vis a vis the federal courts to rectify the situation created by Republicans since Obama took office.

A couple of amendments I'd add to this. First, these shenanigans from the GOP arguably started during the Clinton presidency when the GOP senate refused to hold hearings on some of his nominees. Second, part of the reason Reid invoked the nuclear option was that Republicans filibustered every single Obama judicial nominee, specifically those to the D.C. Circuit because they simply did not want those vacancies filled by a Democratic president. It was beyond just mere delay; they wouldn't confirm ANY nominee that Obama wanted to certain courts.

 

[pjhawk]

Lol. History started in 2009.

It basically did when it comes to the federal judiciary and the Republican tactics/manipulation that has brought us to this point.

Even with control of the Presidency and filibuster-proof 60 Dem seats in the Senate for part of the 2009-10 period Republicans were able to use Senate procedural rules to slow/stop large numbers of Obama nominations to the federal courts, procedural rules that Republicans completely eliminated once they had the Presidency and control of a bare majority of the Senate.

Republicans are setting up a reaping what you sow scenario that they will have absolutely no one to blame for but themselves.

 

[SIXERS24]

Democrats started this in the 1980's

 

[pablow]

Maybe we should determine elections by who gets the most votes.

Maybe our representation in congress should be entirely proportional to the population voting for them.

And given that the right was crying about Obama wearing a tan suit, I'm not sure they should be throwing stones here.

Amend the constitution and quit crying.

 

[pjhawk]

Maybe you cry babies should win some elections.

I don't see any Democrats claiming Trump shouldn't get to make this pick if he wins the election.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Democrats started this in the 1980's

This started with the systematic blocking of Clinton appointees.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Amend the constitution and quit crying.

That's dumb because you know that the 40% that relies upon these issues with the constitution to have power would never allow that.

That's why I say they need to make every tiny inhabited island we own into a state. Then when the right is effectively locked out from power they will be more agreeable to amendments to the constitution.

 

[BigDelHawk]

There has ALWAYS been a political component to appts/confirmations of judges to all the different levels of the federal courts, but this politicization of the process went to a hyper-political level when Barack Obama took office in 2009. Republicans engaged in every tactic possible while in the minority in the Senate to slow/stop Obama appts (blue slip, filibuster, extended confirmation process, etc etc)--which culminated in Reid invoking the "nuclear option" in 2013 for non-Supreme court nominations at the point where Republicans were basically completely shutting down the process.

Once in the majority in 2015, Republicans did essentially shut down the judicial confirmation process.

Of course, with control of the Presidency and the Senate from 2017 onward Republicans eliminated all the previous constraints on the confirmation process (ALL OF THEM--filibuster, blue slip, etc etc) and have been confirming new federal judges at record numbers and a record pace (their delaying tactics throughout the Obama era left large numbers of federal judge openings when Trump entered office).

Dems are justified in packing the courts or whatever other ameliorations that are necessary vis a vis the federal courts to rectify the situation created by Republicans since Obama took office.

Started by the Dems with Bjork and Thomas. You have to go further back.

 

[BigDelHawk]

That's dumb because you know that the 40% that relies upon these issues with the constitution to have power would never allow that.

That's why I say they need to make every tiny inhabited island we own into a state. Then when the right is effectively locked out from power they will be more agreeable to amendments to the constitution.

Get your way at any cost.

 

[TJ8869]

This started with the systematic blocking of Clinton appointees.

...which was retaliation for the systematic blocking of GHWB appointees.

With each successive administration over the past 30 years, the opposing party has employed increasingly divisive and rancorous tactics.

 

[pjhawk]

Started by the Dems with Bjork and Thomas. You have to go further back.

FAIL. Bork/Thomas aren't even part of this discussion. They received a full confirmation process and then an up/down vote in the Senate. There were not any alterations to Senate procedure/rules/norms when it came to their nominations.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Started by the Dems with Bjork and Thomas. You have to go further back.

You do realize that Reagan got his nominee with Kennedy who passed 97 to 0? Also 6 Republicans voted against Bork.

Also Thomas was confirmed.

So that's a BS complaint.

Also as mentioned all three of them did get a full vote. The Dems didn't take and just refuse a vote and say we'll wait til the election.

Quite frankly Bork was an extremist while Kennedy was a moderate. When the president and the senate are held by two different parties it makes perfect sense that a moderate should be nominated. Nominating Bork and expecting confirmation by a Dem senate is silly.

Garland for the record was a moderate, but again he didn't get a vote.

 

[pjhawk]

...which was retaliation for the systematic blocking of GHWB appointees.

With each successive administration over the past 30 years, the opposing party has employed increasingly divisive and rancorous tactics.

I haven't heard this one. There was systematic blocking of GHWB appointees? At a scale commensurate with the blocking of Clinton appointees? Let alone what's occurred since the amping up of these tactics when Obama became President?

 

[UNIowaHawk]

Democrats started this in the 1980's

It really started in the early 70's. There were some here and there, but usually less than 3 or so every couple years. When Nixon came in it jumped to the 20's and has only really increased since then seeing another huge uptick in the early 2000's with Bush then Obama, and again with Trump.

 

[BigDelHawk]

FAIL. Bork/Thomas aren't even part of this discussion. They received a full confirmation process and then an up/down vote in the Senate. There were not any alterations to Senate procedure/rules/norms when it came to their nominations.

Ah, but the political smear campaigns were something else. Just like they tried with Kavanaugh.

 

[TJ8869]

I haven't heard this one. There was systematic blocking of GHWB appointees? At a scale commensurate with the blocking of Clinton appointees? Let alone what's occurred since the amping up of these tactics when Obama became President?

Starting with Jay Waldman in July 1991, Democrats blocked 11 Bush nominees specifically so they could hold those seats open for the next Democratic President. Besides Waldman, Democrats also refused to even hold hearings for Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen, Terrence Boyle, Lillian BeVier, Sidney Fitzwater, John Smietanka, Justin Wilson, Frank Keating, Kenneth Ryskamp, Federico Moreno, and John Roberts (yes, that John Roberts).

None of them even made it out of committee and all of the vacant seats for which they were nominated were later filled by Clinton appointees. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee at that time was a Democrat named Biden. Not sure what he's up to these days.

So Republicans retaliated by systematically blocking Clinton nominees. And Democrats retaliated for that by systematically blocking GWB nominees. And Republicans retaliated for that by systematically blocking Obama appointees. And the beat goes on.

Since you're so adamant that Republicans started the war over federal judicial confirmations in 2009, ask the Google overlords which party was the first to filibuster a federal judicial nominee, and also be sure to inquire about the date it happened and how that chronologically aligns with the Obama administration.

 

[pjhawk]

Ah, but the political smear campaigns were something else. Just like they tried with Kavanaugh.

6 Republican Senators voted against Bork, there were serious personal allegations made against Thomas that were explored and investigated but he was confirmed by a Democratic controlled Senate.

Your problem here seems to be with any kind of serious vetting process when it comes to nominees you support. Hardy har har about the political smear complaints coming from a Trump Republican.

 

[83Hawk]

“Mom, he started it!“

”No, HE did!”

“HE did!”

“No, HE did.”

Just listen to yourselves. Seriously. You *all* sound like a bunch of whiny children.

 

[TJ8869]

“Mom, he started it!“

”No, HE did!”

“HE did!”

“No, HE did.”

Just listen to yourselves. Seriously. You *all* sound like a bunch of whiny children.

I'm not whining. I'm pointing out actual relevant facts.

 

[83Hawk]

FAIL. Bork/Thomas aren't even part of this discussion. They received a full confirmation process and then an up/down vote in the Senate. There were not any alterations to Senate procedure/rules/norms when it came to their nominations.

FAIL. The only actual “rule” is the Constitution. Please read it. Nothing that was done/not done in 2016 violated the Constitution. Nothing. And RBG agreed.

 

[pjhawk]

Starting with Jay Waldman in July 1991, Democrats blocked 11 Bush nominees specifically so they could hold those seats open for the next Democratic President. Besides Waldman, Democrats also refused to even hold hearings for Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen, Terrence Boyle, Lillian BeVier, Sidney Fitzwater, John Smietanka, Justin Wilson, Frank Keating, Kenneth Ryskamp, Federico Moreno, and John Roberts (yes, that John Roberts).

None of them even made it out of committee and all of the vacant seats for which they were nominated were later filled by Clinton appointees. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee at that time was a Democrat named Biden. Not sure what he's up to these days.

So Republicans retaliated by systematically blocking Clinton nominees. And Democrats retaliated for that by systematically blocking GWB nominees. And Republicans retaliated for that by systematically blocking Obama appointees. And the beat goes on.

Since you're so adamant that Republicans started the war over federal judicial confirmations in 2009, ask the Google overlords which party was the first to filibuster a federal judicial nominee, and also be sure to inquire about the date it happened and how that chronologically aligns with the Obama administration.

The GHWB nominations can credibly be cited as based on normal Senate procedure, although it's pushing it. The Republican response in the last two years of the Clinton administration to just shut down ALL of his nominees was a significant escalation.

I don't think you can make any point at all about how Dems in the minority or the majority during the GWB Presidency altered norms/procedures or otherwise escalated the battle over judicial nominations. That's bullshit.

When Obama entered office in 2009 the game changed completely. Republicans used any and every tactic/trick they could to slow/stop ANY Obama nominations they could to any of the federal courts. Which culminated in Reid's invoking of the nuclear option in 2013.

And then after using every trick in the book to block Obama nominations, the Republicans then eliminated ALL of those tricks once they controlled the White HOuse and the Senate. So yes, 2009 is the most significant year when it comes to this--the decision at that time of the Republican Senate leadership to go total scorched earth is why we're here.

We're now at probably where this ends, a President and a Senate controlled by the same party can nominate and confirm anyone they want, and a Senate controlled by the opposition party can block anyone they want. We'll see if Republicans scream bloody murder when the system they've set up turns against them with a Biden Presidency and a Democratic controlled Senate.

 

[pjhawk]

FAIL. The only actual “rule” is the Constitution. Please read it. Nothing that was done/not done in 2016 violated the Constitution. Nothing. And RBG agreed.

FAIL. Mitch McConnell didn't cite the constitution as his rationale for doing what he did in 2016. And arguably, it was unconstitutional for McConnell not to exercise the advise/consent function of the Senate per the nomination of Garland.

Just remember Mr Constitution that court packing isn't prohibited either.

 

[83Hawk]

We're now at probably where this ends, a President and a Senate controlled by the same party can nominate and confirm anyone they want, and a Senate controlled by the opposition party can block anyone they want. We'll see if Republicans scream bloody murder when the system they've set up turns against them with a Biden Presidency and a Democratic controlled Senate.

The President and Senate controlled by the same party could always nominate and confirm anyone they wanted. A Senate controlled by the opposition party could always block anyone they wanted. You act like this is something new. This “system” wasn’t “set up” by Republicans. Unfortunately too many ignorant/gullible Americans actually believe crap like this.

 

[TJ8869]

The GHWB nominations can credibly be cited as based on normal Senate procedure, although it's pushing it. The Republican response in the last two years of the Clinton administration to just shut down ALL of his nominees was a significant escalation.

Where do you get your information? The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed 7 nominees to federal courts of appeals and 17 nominees to federal district courts in 1999. They confirmed 8 nominees to federal courts of appeals and 31 nominees to federal district courts in 2000.

You call that "shutting down ALL of his nominees"?

I don't think you can make any point at all about how Dems in the minority or the majority during the GWB Presidency altered norms/procedures or otherwise escalated the battle over judicial nominations. That's bullshit.

Filibustering a federal judicial nominee for the first time in our nation's history didn't represent an alteration of norms?

 

[sober_teacher]

...which was retaliation for the systematic blocking of GHWB appointees.

With each successive administration over the past 30 years, the opposing party has employed increasingly divisive and rancorous tactics.

I haven't heard this one. There was systematic blocking of GHWB appointees? At a scale commensurate with the blocking of Clinton appointees? Let alone what's occurred since the amping up of these tactics when Obama became President?

Starting with Jay Waldman in July 1991, Democrats blocked 11 Bush nominees specifically so they could hold those seats open for the next Democratic President. Besides Waldman, Democrats also refused to even hold hearings for Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen, Terrence Boyle, Lillian BeVier, Sidney Fitzwater, John Smietanka, Justin Wilson, Frank Keating, Kenneth Ryskamp, Federico Moreno, and John Roberts (yes, that John Roberts).

None of them even made it out of committee and all of the vacant seats for which they were nominated were later filled by Clinton appointees. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee at that time was a Democrat named Biden. Not sure what he's up to these days.

So Republicans retaliated by systematically blocking Clinton nominees. And Democrats retaliated for that by systematically blocking GWB nominees. And Republicans retaliated for that by systematically blocking Obama appointees. And the beat goes on.

Since you're so adamant that Republicans started the war over federal judicial confirmations in 2009, ask the Google overlords which party was the first to filibuster a federal judicial nominee, and also be sure to inquire about the date it happened and how that chronologically aligns with the Obama administration.

TJ, go look up how many judicial appointments at the end of Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama presidencies. It's quite startling.

I'm not sure it's really a apples/apples comparison to say that they blocked 11 nominees in '91 (at least they MADE it to committee), compared to Mitch/GOP holding close to 1/3 of judicial appointments empty by the end of Obama's tenure. Obama nominated people for each one of them but Mitch dragged the process out to a historically slow level.

 

[83Hawk]

FAIL. Mitch McConnell didn't cite the constitution as his rationale for doing what he did in 2016. And arguably, it was unconstitutional for McConnell not to exercise the advise/consent function of the Senate per the nomination of Garland.

Just remember Mr Constitution that court packing isn't prohibited either.

Fail again. The Senate is not required to vote on a nominee. You seem to think the only time that happened was 2016. Nothing McConnel did in 2016 was unconstitutional. Not even “arguably.” There is also nothing that says a Supreme Court seat can‘t be filled AT ANY TIME during an election year. Ruth Bader Ginsberg agreed, so you can forget that argument. You really need to do your research.

As for packing the court......I would guess it will be about as successful as it was in 1937. Go ahead and try it. That is, if you really want Democrats to face the backlash and lose control of the House.

 

[TJ8869]

TJ, go look up how many judicial appointments at the end of Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama presidencies. It's quite startling.

Bush 1 had 193.
Clinton had 378.
Bush 2 had 327.
Obama had 329.

What part of that startles you?

 

[ConvenientParking]

As for packing the court......I would guess it will be about as successful as it was in 1937. Go ahead and try it. That is, if you really want Democrats to face the backlash and lose control of the House.

Lol there aren't enough Republicans for that sans gerrymandering (which fortunately for you the GOP is great at).

 

[Nipigu]

Maybe we should determine elections by who gets the most votes.

We do