So then your contention was wrong.
I am not sure what you mean by “now”. The last confirmation of a judicial nominee was on Sept. 24, 2013, and it was unanimous. The one before that was on August 1, 2013 and it was also unanimous. The one before was July 8, 2013 and it was unanimous. Was all that part of Cruz’s “Teahad” on Obama? And that’s for Circuit Court.
For District Court the last nominations approved were just a couple of weeks ago, on Nov 4. Unanimous, as well. Part of “Teahad” too?
There are 20 Obama nominees currently blocked. Look at Rupert Bacharach of Oklahoma, supported by both Oklahoma Republican Senators for the 10 Circuit Court of Appeals- he was filibustered for nine months before a unanimous confirmation vote. Average wait time for a Bush nominee to a district court- 34 days. For Obama- 100 days. Average wait time for a Bush nominee to a circuit court- 82 days. For Obama- 141 days. One more tidbit- Republicans have filibustered more Obama executive appointments than all previous presidents combined. I think I see a pattern which called for drastic action.
Your claim:
“But now you’ve got guys like Cruz declaring a Teahad on Obama,** the only way to get more judges in office** was to take the toy away from the naughty little boys.”
I showed you that as recently as Nov. 4th more judges were put in office. Unanimously. Thus your claim above was wrong. Not surprisingly.
Do you really fail to see how completely out of hand the situation has become or are you just choosing to ignore it? If you look at the links posted by Chimera it is clear how ridiculous the Republican obstruction has become. In case you missed it, here:
It’s one thing to block nominees because they aren’t qualified or for some other valid reason. But to do it just because you’re pissed about the results of a couple of elections is childish.
Was the unanimous confirmation of judicial nominations as recently as Nov. 4 also part of that “obstruction”?
Did you look at those charts Chimera linked like I asked? Bringing up one instance of a unanimous confirmation hardly serves to undo all the attempts to block most of the nominees put forth by this President.
Good timing.
The big nomination from my perspective will be the empty seat on the Board of Governors after Bernanke. Janet Yellen is ready to chair up, but she’s already on the board so there will still be a missing person when the B-man stands down. That’s a massively important position, and now Obama needs only a bare majority in the Senate. Previously, the GOP filibustered a Nobel Memorial prize winner. That won’t happen again, if this reform extends to non-judicial appointments.
I brought up quite a few. In fact most confirmations are unanimous. So:
Was the unanimous confirmation of judicial nominations as recently as Nov. 4 also part of that “obstruction”? You’re avoiding the question. I think it’s pretty obvious why.
What a laugh. I asked you a question in the first sentence of post 184 and you have made it clear you are determined to avoid answering it. The question you seem hell bent on getting answered is simply a distraction. Just because there were ten, fifty or a hundred unanimous confirmations doesn’t change the fact there has been a concerted effort to obstruct more of this President’s nominees than any other President in history. Go ahead, click one of those links and see.
The fact you won’t answer the question I posed in post 184 shows just how interested you are in an honest debate on this topic.
And now I’ve wasted enough of my time. Later.
It’s going to be a bitch when the tables are turned.
I’ll answer that: Yes it is obstruction. One instance of a nominee does not take away from the 82 previously filibustered (and I might add, 82 in Obama’s 5 years vs. 86 for all previous presidents combined).
You’re doing what you typically do: taking a tiny sample and ignoring the bigger picture in order to try to prove your point. It doesn’t work in this instance and it won’t work in the future, not that it ever has in the past. Your problem is that you’re comparing one confirmation with zero, and saying that one confirmation should mean something. Your mistake. What you should be comparing that one nomination to is the 82 previously filibustered and look at the bigger picture of how many total people have ever been filibustered for these positions in the entire history of this country.
Face it (you won’t, but you should), the Republicans have been as obstructionist as no party ever has in the history of the United States. Thus, it was time to consider an option never used in the history of the United States. You break it, you live with the consequences. Those 20 people will be confirmed, all of them, and the DC circuit court will have 3 new Obama appointees (7 to the Republican 4) and they will be able to uphold all sorts of liberal laws that Obama has passed. And you have the GOP Congress to thank for it.
Those diabolically clever Republicans - they confirm ten, fifty or a hundred judicial nominations - unanimously - as part of the concerted effort to obstruct President’s judicial nominations.
How about two? 10? 50? Are they still “obstruction”?
How about two? 10? 50?
Actually Terr, this is the part of YogSosoth’s post you should be quoting, or better yet, paying attention to.
The sad thing about this is that you actually believe what you type out. Tell me, in your world, what isn’t the Republicans fault? I bet you’re the type of person who would tell a victim of domestic assault that it’s her fault, as she should have done as she was told.
It seems to me that the Democrats can be as bad as they want to be-- as hypocritical as they want to be-- and yet someway it will somehow be the Republicans’ fault. Id mention something about personal responsibility, but y’all don’t believe in that. It will forever be “someone else’s fault”. The Democratic mantra as of late seems to be change the rules of the game mid-game to benefit yourself, and then blame it on someone else for “having” to change the rules mid-game.
…Oh, and thank you for blatantly acknowledging that Obama is only interested in simply stacking the courts with “yes” men.
One way to make this thread better informed would be to compare the nominations by GWB and BHO. Specifically, to list the least qualified and/or most radical nominations of each. Unfortunately I lack the time or knowledge to do this, but I can start the list, if others help. (I got the name Kagan from this peculiar webpage after Googling “Harriett Myers.”)
GWB’s worst nominations:
Harriett Myers
…
BHO’s worst nominations:
Elena Kagan
…
This won’t stop the debate, of course. One may expect GOP shills to agree with cited webpage that
… But it may give rational Dopers a basis for understanding whose filibusters were used to protect the courts from incompetence and whose were just political malice.
Harriet Miers was not filibustered by the Democrats, as several have suggested. In fact much of the criticism of her came from Republicans who felt that she did not have sufficient conservative credentials. She also did infamously poorly at her committee hearing and the president subsequently withdrew her nomination.
This is inflammatory and insulting, and it’s not right for this forum. Don’t do it again.
Yeah, yeah.
The sentiment is true, though. You can’t blame the other party for “forcing” you to change the system into one which clearly benefits you-- especially after decrying the same move years earlier. That’s asinine.
It’s always amusing when OMGABC projects himself onto his ideological opponents.