I think it would be hilarious if the Senate swiftly moved to fill all the vacancies as quickly as possible, then in November 2015, should (by completely unexpected chance) the Republicans regain the Senate, reinstated the Filibuster rules. That would put the Republicans in the position of either keeping them (as they’ve been defending them at this time), or voting themselves to get rid of them.
Obama should not only get busy filling all the vacancies, he should appoint as many District Court judges up the chain as he can so he can appoint their replacements as well.
You disagree that was a motivation? Or that the caseload of the DC Circuit is declining?
I’m not sure you understand how senior judges (not retired judges, who are no longer legally authorized to exercise judicial power) work. They continue to hear cases, they don’t get “sent” “overflow casework.” And they’ll continue to hear cases, even if the seats get filled (and that’s not a sign that there’s too many cases).
But the real “partisan” issue is that only active judges get to vote on en banc rehearing. Filing the seats is designed to make sure that there is a 7-4 majority to overturn any panel decision that goes a certain way. A 4-4 split means that you needed “bipartisan” support to overturn a panel decision.
Are you saying that don’t actually believe it? Or they do believe but they can’t get it passed so they’re doing it some other way?
You should take that up with the author of the article. I’m just citing what was reported. If its false you should be able to cite that as well. I don’t have the knowledge to debate on behalf of the author. If the article is wrong, I’ll have no problem accepting it, but not just on the word of some random message board participant, I hope you understand.
Yes and this is what happens when an election is won. The winners get to influence things by making appointments. The Republicans lost, two presidential elections in a row, yet refuse to admit it for some reason. Elections do indeed have consequences. This is one of them, and the Republicans shouldn’t get to get out of suffering this consequence just because ‘they don’t wanna’. There’s a big spoiled child streak behind most of the actions of the Republicans lately. If they think there must be partisan balance, then why don’t they advocate legislating that?
I’m saying that they want something, but are not willing to act above board to get it. If they think that presidents should not be able to appoint people, they should propose that and try to get it passed in full view of the voters. If they don’t want to do that, then they shouldn’t get their way. That’s how this is supposed to work.
Hate to double post, but look:
If we want to talk about Republican obstruction of judicial nominations, lets talk about the vacancies listed as judicial emergencies.
Let’s ask why the Senate hasn’t confirmed Obama’s nominees to the two seats on the 5th Circuit, the two on the 9th, and four on the 11th that are “emergencies.” Not on the emergency list: the DC Circuit.
Okay. The definition of senior status is not exactly obscure to anyone mildly aware of the federal judiciary. See here.
In connection with this, I heard on NPR a quote from George Washington likening the Senate to a saucer into which the hot tea of the House can be poured for cooling.
Ick, Mr. President! You might be the Father of Our Country, but you don’t get a pass for drinking from the saucer! :mad:
I guess we’ll see how many vacancies get filled when they come back. The Senate will busy themselves with the actual Business of Government while the House plays it’s idiotic “Burn down the country to stop Obama” game once again, refusing to vote on budget and debt bills that might actually pass on a vote, but won’t get one because the majority of the majority party won’t support it.
Because you know, that whole ‘ending the filibuster’ thing is so much worse for our country than the fucking Hastert Rule. :rolleyes:
Anyone who thinks the current crop of Republicans would not have done away with the filibuster the second they took control of the Senate is deluded. The Democrats might as well do it now so they can get some benefit out of being the ones in power when it dies.
This is a good question. I think what Reid did is truly bad for the senate. So, while I would hope that the Reps. would reinstitute it when they have the chance, they Dems should pay a penalty for what they’ve done. I see a Republican senate taking advantage of what Reid has wrought, and then reinstating the filibuster. That way, they get some of their stuff through, penalize the Dems, and get to be the party who reinstated the protections for the minority while the Dems will have stripped it away.
Reid did what the Dems should have done earlier, as other have pointed out.
Here’s the problem with the Republican Party, both in the Senate and the House–
They aren’t the Republican Party of years gone by, they’re made up of a mixture of old style Republicans, most of whom are pretty decent people, and a group of people who think that shutting down the government is a viable solution. It isn’t.
Compromise works in real life, obstructionism is not a viable strategy.
The idea that the Republicans wouldn’t have done this roughly 30 seconds after the gavel dropped in Jan, 2015, assuming a Republican majority that wasn’t a supermajority, is delusional. Purest fantasy.
So the Democrats did it first because the Republicans would have done it anyways, even though the Republicans didn’t when they had control before?
So when the Republicans eventually regain the senate there should be no complaints when all nominees and all other legislation is passed with a simple majority?
I wonder if there are any other levers in the senate that the minority party can pull to thwart the majority agenda. McConnell has been threatening retribution should the nuclear option ever be used so now I’m wondering just what that entails.
No. The Democrats did it because there was no fucking way to conduct the fucking business of fucking government with the fucking Republicans fucking obstructing fucking everything they were fucking trying to fucking do.
Are you restricting this to judicial nominations, or the entire obstructionist platform? My understanding was that the rule change only applies to non SCOTUS judicial nominations (of course it’s only a matter of time before that restriction goes away). And if that’s what we’re talking about, we need look no further back than the Bush administration where Democrats blocked republican nominees.
I personally think there should be an up or down vote on the nominees, and don’t really support the filibuster in any situation, but at a minimum this is pretty fucking hypocritical to decry the nuclear option in administration’s past and employ it now.
No, it covers all executive-branch appointments - such as, for instance, the directorship of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, which the GOP tried to sabotage by refusing to allow Obama’s nominees (Elizabeth Warren and then Richard Cordray) to be voted upon.
Or to support it then and decry it now, such as McConnell is trying to lie about now?
Yes, McConnell is pretty transparent as well. But supporting something and not actually following through is at a different level than actually executing the nuclear option. Still hypocritical none the less.
Since when is voting “no” not a valid position?
Although, as I recall, last time a group of moderates from both sides got together and let the Republicans have their nominees as long as they weren’t too controversial. If there were enough moderates on the Republican side who would agree to let non-controversial Democratic nominees through then I bet Reid would also have backed down from the nuclear option.
Voting no is valid. Using procedural fol-de-rol to obstruct a majority of votes despite being the MINORITY PARTY in the legislative body is not. The filibuster is not even mentioned in the Constitution. It’s an ephemeral rule that’s lasted too long.