Jump to content

Federal Judge Appointments

TahoeHorn

By TahoeHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Perhaps the most controversial nominee which will be confirmed is Ryan Bounds.  The Judiciary Committee will vote on him within the hour.  You can watch the Dems whine live if you wish:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/06/07/2018/executive-business-meeting

Ha ha.  When I was at Stanford I worked at the Hoover Institution and wrote careless, stupid op eds in the Stanford Daily. This guy did the same for the Stanford Review. 

Sorry.  Baring the most glaring craziness, one should get a pass for college op-eds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanRydell

DanRydell 799

Posted
Posted
And libs would have defended the Biden rule.


This lib has been criticizing Senate obstruction of judicial nominations since Bush was President. Just because you’re a hypocritical piece of shit doesn’t mean everyone else is. I guess trust funds can’t buy principles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

So Kennedy retiring this month, huh?

There are about  167 judicial seats to fill and about 336 executive positions to fill.  The Dems are making aggressive use of stalling tactics.  It will take a lot more time to vote than was expected.  Many of these 500 have been nominated and gone through committee hearings.  I think McConnell wants to put 100 to 200 through, and get them on the job.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tennesseehorn

Tennesseehorn 101

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 


This lib has been criticizing Senate obstruction of judicial nominations since Bush was President. Just because you’re a hypocritical piece of shit doesn’t mean everyone else is. I guess trust funds can’t buy principles.

 

Surrrrrrrre you did.  

 

Yeah right. 

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think it is interesting to discuss where obstruction is, where it isn't and what the implications. 

I think it makes sense to discuss the morality and hypocrisy angle once.  Maybe twice.  But after that it's a fucking waste of time.  We have a situation where both the majority and minority are escalating their partisan behavior.  There is no end in sight and every reason to believe it will continue to increase.  I think the only discussions which aren't a waste of time are those which address the future and either accept the reality that things are getting uglier or propose a realistic way to address it (i.e. not suggest that the opposition just quit being ugly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanRydell

DanRydell 799

Posted
Posted
I think it is interesting to discuss where obstruction is, where it isn't and what the implications. 
I think it makes sense to discuss the morality and hypocrisy angle once.  Maybe twice.  But after that it's a fucking waste of time.  We have a situation where both the majority and minority are escalating their partisan behavior.  There is no end in sight and every reason to believe it will continue to increase.  I think the only discussions which aren't a waste of time are those which address the future and either accept the reality that things are getting uglier or propose a realistic way to address it (i.e. not suggest that the opposition just quit being ugly).


Blocking hearings and votes is obstruction. Voting against confirmation is not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Gil,

 

Here is the raw data.  You can generate your own gee whiz stats to mislead people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

Here's one such true, but misleading stat:

Obama appointed 329 judges in eight years.  (41 per year)

Trump has only appointed 42 in a year and a half. (28 per year)

Another:

There were 112 vacancies when Trump came into office.  Now there are 148.  The "record pace" isn't keeping up with retirements (which run about 50 a year I'd guess).

Edited by TahoeHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31450

Posted
Posted

I liked it a lot better when we pretended that judges were neutral arbiters of things, even Supreme Court justices.  It was farcical, but it's less farcical and less disgusting than the current nomination and confirmation process that reminds me of a student council election gone wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
I liked it a lot better when we pretended that judges were neutral arbiters of things, even Supreme Court justices.  It was farcical, but it's less farcical and less disgusting than the current nomination and confirmation process that reminds me of a student council election gone wrong.

Sez you. Trump promised recess all day every day, ice cream for lunch, and no more stoopid poppyhead teachers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted

9th circuit scuttlebutt and other Fed Judge news/:

Quote

WASHINGTON – There's been a noticeable exception to President Donald Trump's otherwise successful effort to appoint young, conservative judges to the nation's appellate courts.

The Senate has confirmed a record 24 new circuit court judges nationwide in 20 months — with two more nominees scheduled for votes this week. But Trump has made far less progress in the jurisdiction he criticizes the most: the liberal-leaning U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, including California and eight other Western states.

Since Trump took office, the Senate has confirmed only one 9th Circuit judge — in Hawaii — leaving seven openings. A nominee in Oregon was abruptly withdrawn last month when it became clear he lacked the votes for Senate approval.

And Trump has yet to even nominate anyone for the three vacancies in California, partly because of a standoff with Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris.

But there are signs that the administration is beginning to set its sights on the 9th Circuit, likely triggering a bruising fight with Democrats.

 

For one thing, Trump is running out of vacancies in other circuits, particularly in conservative states where confirmation is easier.

"They've been focusing on lower-hanging fruit," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. "After a while there are only so many seats to fill."

More than half of the 13 vacancies remaining nationwide are on the 9th Circuit.

 

Why Trump isn't moving faster is a mystery, considering how conservatives have long reviled the 9th Circuit and Trump has frequently attacked its rulings.

Since his inauguration, 9th Circuit judges have ruled that he couldn't legally bar tens of thousands of visitors and immigrants from several mostly Muslim nations from entering the country (a decision the Supreme Court overturned). They've forced him to continue processing renewal applications of immigrants previously approved for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which Trump ended. Last month, a judge knocked down Trump's order restricting federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities.

"I thought they would have moved more aggressively," San Francisco appellate attorney Ben Feuer said.

But the recent fight over Ryan W. Bounds' nomination in Oregon showed that Trump and the Republican-led Senate are ready to adopt a tougher stance, including scrapping a long-standing Senate tradition to push through Trump's choices if necessary.

Oregon's two Democratic senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, opposed Bounds and refused to issue their "blue slips," a century-old courtesy in which senators are asked to sign off on nominees from their state.

In the past, rejection by both home state senators was enough to effectively kill a nomination. But for the first time, Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley of Iowa brushed off the home senators' views and moved forward anyway.

Previously the Senate has only considered a nomination if both or at least one of the home state senators approved.

 

Bounds' nomination ultimately failed, but not because the Oregon senators didn't return their blue slips. Instead some of Bounds' old racially charged writings raised doubts among enough senators, including at least one Republican, that the White House withdrew his nomination.

But the precedent of breaking with the blue-slip tradition has deep implications for the 9th Circuit, where four of the nine states it covers have two Democratic senators.

Idaho's Republican senators support Trump nominee Ryan D. Nelson, so he is quickly moving through the process without a problem.

And Hawaii's two Democratic senators enthusiastically backed Trump nominee Judge Mark J. Bennett as a consensus pick who had already been vetted by their review committees. He was approved in July by a 72-27 vote.

But the rest of the vacancies will not be so easy.

Trump nominated appellate attorney Eric D. Miller of Washington state though he was not recommended by the review committee created by the state's Democratic senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. Murray says she's reserving judgment on Miller, but Cantwell's office immediately signaled another potential fight ahead, telling the Seattle Times that "the senator did not and does not consent to Eric Miller's nomination."

In Arizona, where Trump doesn't get along with either Republican senator, he's held off as well.

https://www.adn.com/politics/2018/08/15/is-trump-finally-ready-to-turn-his-sights-to-remaking-the-9th-circuit-court/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
Quote

California senators will try to block White House judicial nominees for the 9th Circuit

Quote

Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris complained Thursday that they did not sign off on three White House nominees for open California seats on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and said they would oppose their confirmation in the Senate.

President Trump announced Wednesday evening he had nominated Assistant U.S. Atty. for the Southern District of California Patrick J. Bumatay, Los Angeles appellate attorney Daniel P. Collins and Los Angeles litigator Kenneth Kiyul Lee for California-based vacancies.

Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she and the administration were still trying to reach a consensus on nominees when the White House abruptly announced them.

“I repeatedly told the White House I wanted to reach an agreement on a package of 9th Circuit nominees, but last night the White House moved forward without consulting me, picking controversial candidates from its initial list and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested," Feinstein said in a statement.

....

la-1539286365-xhegowbo21-snap-image

Hmm, what is going on with these nominations?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-9th-circuit-nominees-20181011-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MixtyMotions

MixtyMotions 102

Posted
Posted

Obama filled 55 appellate seats in eight years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

Trump should fill 44 appellate seats in two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

29 of the 44 have been filled.  12 more are in the pipeline, and I think there is a firm plan to get these seated before the next Senate takes over, as there is some risk the GOP loses control.  The last three have not been named, but I think they will be and there is enough time to get them through during the lame duck period.

Feinstein and Harris are not operating in good faith.  There is no reason to believe that they are doing anything other than blocking Federalist type nominees and trying to delay in the hopes that a Dem Senate will take over and put a halt to Trump nominees.

The Dem plan for appellate nominees has been to stall on all, vote against most, but be selective about which ones to raise a fit over.  Most of the fits have been about failures to let Dems block or stall, or about a few nominees they had the most heartburn over. 

The district courts are less clear.

Obama filled 268 seats in eight years.  Trump has the possibility of filling at least 180 in two but I see that as unlikely.  It's not clear how many he will fill.

To date 53 have been filled.  Another 58 are in the pipeline and most all appear to me to be on target to be seated by the end of this term.  Two - Giampetro and O'Connor - may be exceptions.  I'm not sure they have the needed votes.  Something seems amiss.

That leaves 69 which need to be named.  If they aren't named damned soon, and even if they are, there isn't the time to go though the process this term.  Most all of these (maybe all) are in states that have Dem Senators.  The White House has been trying to develop consensus nominees and had usually been successful.  But it's tough to read.  To date the Dems have played hardball with appellate nominees but not with district nominees.  That may be because they want to save all their political capital for where it counts most.  It may be because both sides are trying to do what is right where their bases don't cause a fuss. I suspect it's because they recognize that a good district judge has a lot less latitude for ideological foolishness.  But, try as I might, I can't understand what is truly at play.  The Dems stall but they usually don't vote against them.  However,  the White House started with the ones of the 180 which were easiest.  It's clearly moving to the states and nominees that the Dems had the most objections to.  Bottom line: I don't know what the hell is going on with the last 69 or so.

If the GOP keeps control of the Senate all will be good.  If the Dems gain control I expect judicial confirmations will come to a screeching halt, with the exception of some district judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3760

Posted
Posted

The GOP is smart ot focus on trying to stack the courts with conservative judicial activists to move forward a conservative agenda.  Simply because it's pretty clear that the agenda the GOP wants to push legislatively is not one that is going to be embraced by the majority of Americans.  So legislating from the bench is really the best option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
27-25

27-25 2047

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, horn4life said:

The GOP is smart ot focus on trying to stack the courts with conservative judicial activists to move forward a conservative agenda.  Simply because it's pretty clear that the agenda the GOP wants to push legislatively is not one that is going to be embraced by the majority of Americans.  So legislating from the bench is really the best option.

Does this fall under the "every accusation is a confession" theme?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3760

Posted
Posted

I'm just pointing out that for example there is no way in hell the GOP could legislatively on a national level outlaw abortion.  Because trying to do so would result in a massive flushing of the GOP out of office.  Yet that is THE single reason for Kavanaugh to get the job.

On a bright note Judge Kavanaugh is apparently exactly as innocent of the charges leveled by Dr. Ford as MBS is of "strongly denying" the involvement in the Murder of a Washington Post Journalist.  Sad how far our country has fallen when our President needs to justify the warm embrace of a murderer of a journist with a Supreme Court pick.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I'm just pointing out that for example there is no way in hell the GOP could legislatively on a national level outlaw abortion. 

Why not?

Not saying they will do it.  Wanting to outlaw abortion is good excuse for their "religious" right base to latch on to, while ignoring everything else the GOP is doing.  But there's no reason they couldn't pass a law tomorrow (except for Murkowski and Collins) outlawing abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...