Jump to content

Federal Judge Appointments

TahoeHorn

By TahoeHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

DanRydell

DanRydell 799

Posted
Posted
You all seem to be missing the point:  The war is getting uglier and uglier.
You can't argue that either side is behaving well.  Both sides believe in blocking well qualified opponents.  This will not end well.


Then condemn your side when they make it ugly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28764

Posted
Posted
On 5/8/2018 at 1:30 PM, kevwun said:

When we are involved in a completely unnecessary war in the Middle East, I hope these judicial appointments keep you warm at night.

We seem to be perpetually involved in a war in the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7551

Posted
Posted
On 5/8/2018 at 11:04 AM, TahoeHorn said:

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/Web rating Chart Trump 115.authcheckdam.pdf

 

Not so, Scooter.  You need to see how the Dems behave with the highest rated judges.

Hey, look at the rating of Gorsuch.  It's the highest possible.

Absolutely so Scooter. I even put a pretty picture for you to understand it. Notice the red circle, the one that reads 'Not qualified', only appears beside W and Trump.

TQSBUWMEBUYC5FRKBHWXMU6QOI.jpg

Not surprisingly, you are cherry picking an extreme exception. It's kind of what you do. McConnell stole that seat by refusing to bring a vote on it. Democrats were rightfully opposed to whoever McConnell picked to fill it. That whole thing was bullshit and only GOP partisan hacks approve, so of course you do. 

I also like Gorsuch in comparison to the other atrocities you guys are trying to sit. I think he's going to be level and fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7551

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Trump's circuit court nominees are being confirmed EIGHT times faster than Obama's, an average of only 20 days after voting out of committee. 

You guys aren't going to stop listening to the alt-right lunatics and liars, so you're not going to stop repeating this lie.

The rest of us know these judges are being approved at ludicrous speed without enough time to properly vet and it's being done because Trump's judicial nominees are at unprecedented levels of unqualified for personal and/or professional reasons. 

 

Edited by Pods
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Pods said:

Absolutely so Scooter. I even put a pretty picture for you to understand it. Notice the red circle, the one that reads 'Not qualified', only appears beside W and Trump.

TQSBUWMEBUYC5FRKBHWXMU6QOI.jpg

Not surprisingly, you are cherry picking an extreme exception. It's kind of what you do. McConnell stole that seat by refusing to bring a vote on it. Democrats were rightfully opposed to whoever McConnell picked to fill it. That whole thing was bullshit and only GOP partisan hacks approve, so of course you do. 

I also like Gorsuch in comparison to the other atrocities you guys are trying to sit. I think he's going to be level and fair. 

I follow every stinking nomination.  I know the spin of every stinking article.  Do your own analysis if you want the truth.

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

 

I have more website with the raw info if you care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Scorpio

Hank Scorpio 17729

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I follow every stinking nomination.  I know the spin of every stinking article.  Do your own analysis if you want the truth.

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

 

I have more website with the raw info if you care.

Hahahahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7551

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

I follow every stinking nomination.  I know the spin of every stinking article.  Do your own analysis if you want the truth.

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

 

I have more website with the raw info if you care.

TQSBUWMEBUYC5FRKBHWXMU6QOI.jpg

 

Are you red/green color blind or something?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
On 5/8/2018 at 11:47 AM, TahoeHorn said:

You all seem to be missing the point:  The war is getting uglier and uglier.

You can't argue that either side is behaving well.  Both sides believe in blocking well qualified opponents.  This will not end well.

No we’re not missing the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7551

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, JBJ said:

Pods, ABA ratings aren't exactly objective or apolitical.

tenor.gif

The professional licensing board of every professional organization is generally a pretty good judge of who is qualified within their field and who isn't. Obama suggested some and they told him they weren't qualified, so he pulled it. That seems to be the only difference. GOP doesn't ask or care whether the ABA thinks they are qualified. I do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31440

Posted
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Pods said:

tenor.gif

The professional licensing board of every professional organization is generally a pretty good judge of who is qualified within their field and who isn't. Obama suggested some and they told him they weren't qualified, so he pulled it. That seems to be the only difference. GOP doesn't ask or care whether the ABA thinks they are qualified. I do. 

A nitpick, but the ABA has almost nothing to do with the licensing of attorneys.  But the qualification system is mostly based on objective criteria like litigation experience, judicial experience, appellate experience.

 

One of the common threads among Trump appointees is youth/inexperience, hence a number of the NQs.  Quite a few of the Q/NQ district judge nominees have no discernible politics.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105078

Posted
Posted
A nitpick, but the ABA has almost nothing to do with the licensing of attorneys.  But the qualification system is mostly based on objective criteria like litigation experience, judicial experience, appellate experience.

Cosign.

Not the licensing body, but it’s a mostly objective criteria exercise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3654

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Cosign.

Not the licensing body, but it’s a mostly objective criteria exercise.

No it's not.  Thomas rated Q-NQ and Bork rated WQ-NQ. 

Whereas 65% of Clinton and Obama nominees with no litigation or judicial experience received WQ ratings.

There's a reason why Democrat administrations pre-vet with ABA and Republican ones don't.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7551

Posted
Posted (edited)

Bork was NOT qualified. He was highly qualified in every respect, except the key one, integrity. He obstructed justice on behalf of President Nixon. That is a permanent disqualifying decision for a potential Supreme Court Justice. 

Thomas is a clown. 

You're not helping your case. 

Edited by Pods
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Two  more appellate judges will be confirmed today.  Voting will begin in an hour and last about an hour.  That'll bring us to 21 of the 42 Trump has to fill.  Of the remaining 21 seats 3 (Oldham, Bounds and Bennett) will get confirmed within a month, 7 more will get confirmed this Summer.  I'm unclear  on the last 11.   I'll guess they all have to be named fairly soon (i.e May) to have a great chance at being confirmed before the Senate breaks for elections.  It'll be a scramble unless the GOP puts a halt to stalling moves.

The district judge situation isn't as pretty, mostly because the priority (for both parties) has been appellate judges.  Trump has filled 17 of 164.   Of the 147 remaining 32 are ready for a Senate vote, 40 are in the Judiciary Committee and will get confirmed this Summer.  The last 75 need to be named soon if they are to get confirmed by this Senate (unless the GOP puts a halt to stalling moves). 

It is clear to me that the nomination "packages" have been heavily state oriented.  For example, this latest package had a lot of the New York nominees.  The White House has been trying hard to work things out with the Senators from each state to avoid "blue slip" fights.  The White House had no trouble with some states (mostly GOP states).  Some Dem states ultimately got worked out through a long process.  Two states (Wisconsin [1 Senator], Oregon [both senators]) couldn't get worked out and the GOP did not honor the obstruction.  Some states are still being negotiated.  I expect a lot of the 11 appellate and 75 district to get named soon as "packages" are clearly in the final stages of negotiation.  The drama is around big states like California (10 District and 5 appellate).  Will things get worked out as they have in most states, or are the last ones all the most contentious?

 

 

 

Edited by TahoeHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31440

Posted
Posted
On 5/12/2018 at 2:24 PM, Pods said:

Bork was NOT qualified. He was highly qualified in every respect, except the key one, integrity. He obstructed justice on behalf of President Nixon. That is a permanent disqualifying decision for a potential Supreme Court Justice. 

Thomas is a clown. 

You're not helping your case. 

Bork was an advocate of extreme executive power.  So I wouldn't really call his participation in the Saturday Night Massacre a lack of integrity.  He verily believed that dismissal of the special prosecutor was within the power of the President  Indeed, by acting on Nixon's command, he virtually insured his impeachment and resignation.  He considered resigning to avoid the implication that you raise.  Acting consistently with considered beliefs is not a lack of integrity, even if you disagree with those beliefs to the strongest degree possible.

 

Brisket and I said "mostly objective."  It isn't entirely objective.  The objections to Bork were based on his judicial philosophy and were, therefore, subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The problem with the Dem behavior on the Bork nomination was not their reasons for opposing him.  It was their tactics in opposing him.  They hit below the belt in a manner not seen prior to that.  It began a process of ugliness.

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7551

Posted
Posted

 

 

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Bork was an advocate of extreme executive power.  So I wouldn't really call his participation in the Saturday Night Massacre a lack of integrity.  He verily believed that dismissal of the special prosecutor was within the power of the President  Indeed, by acting on Nixon's command, he virtually insured his impeachment and resignation.  He considered resigning to avoid the implication that you raise.  Acting consistently with considered beliefs is not a lack of integrity, even if you disagree with those beliefs to the strongest degree possible.

Then I change it from lack of integrity to EXTRAORDINARILY bad judgement, which even more disqualifies him. If that is really his belief, he would be even more dangerous on the Supreme Court if he was an extreme Executive Power zealot than if he had just sold that position out to keep his job. 

5 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

The problem with the Dem behavior on the Bork nomination was not their reasons for opposing him.  It was their tactics in opposing him.  They hit below the belt in a manner not seen prior to that.  It began a process of ugliness.

There is no point debating issues like this with you, because you never let facts change your emotion. It's always entirely the democrats fault for you. You could just cut and paste other names in for Bork and I'm sure you've made that same butthurt post about dozens of nominees over the years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Pods said:

 

There is no point debating issues like this with you, because you never let facts change your emotion. It's always entirely the democrats fault for you. You could just cut and paste other names in for Bork and I'm sure you've made that same butthurt post about dozens of nominees over the years. 

There have been three  confirmation hearings in my life (that I remember) notable for their below-the-belt ugliness:

- John Tower

- Robert Bork

- Clarence Thomas

These hearings made the whole confirmation process a lot more bitter. 

You don't have to agree or attack me.  You could just present an alternative affirmative view.

Edited by TahoeHorn
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seven

seven 1367

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

I reject the premise that it’s possible to go below the belt with someone who sexually harassed his employee or who obstructed justice at the highest level.

 

No way, demoncraps are just super mean 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

I reject the premise that it’s possible to go below the belt with someone who sexually harassed his employee or who obstructed justice at the highest level.

 

Ted Kennedy leading a character attack on anyone is rich. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Tennesseehorn

Tennesseehorn 101

Posted
Posted
On 5/12/2018 at 2:24 PM, Pods said:

Bork was NOT qualified. He was highly qualified in every respect, except the key one, integrity. He obstructed justice on behalf of President Nixon. That is a permanent disqualifying decision for a potential Supreme Court Justice. 

Thomas is a clown. 

You're not helping your case. 

Something tells me your opinion doesn't mean shit.  I guess the uppity negro who doesn't stay on or want to belong to the dem plantation is somehow inferior.  Sure.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted

Although Judge Thomas has gained a reputation as an outspoken opponent of affirmative action, the subject has been little discussed so far. Today he told Senator Hank Brown, a Colorado Republican, that he opposed timetables, preferences or quotas but said he supported efforts to seek out and enlist fully qualified minorities. Under such a program, he said, he was able to attend Yale Law School.

"The effort on the part of Yale during my years there was to reach out and open its doors to minorities whom it felt were qualified, and I took them at their word on that," he said. "And I have advocated that very kind of affirmative action."

But Yale officials have said that Judge Thomas was actually admitted under a preference program, in which different standards were used in an effort to have minorities make up about 10 percent of the entering class.

...

After Mr. Metzenbaum's persistent questions about abortions led off the hearing, the same issue was sharply pressed in the afternoon by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. The Senator sought to question Judge Thomas again on what he meant in 1987 when he briefly but pointedly praised an article that argued Roe v. Wade was immoral and a violation of natural law. Judge Thomas's writings in support of natural law, the concept that there is a higher, more fundamental law that transcends any written law, has been the focus of much questioning.

Mr. Leahy seemed annoyed when Judge Thomas said for the first time today that he may never have read the article by Lewis Lehrman, a New York businessman and patron of conservative causes. In his 1987 speech entitled, "Why Black Americans Should Look to Conservative Policies," he praised the Lehrman article. He said the article "on the meaning of the right to life is a splendid example of applying natural law."

Judge Thomas said he might have only skimmed the piece before he spoke and had not looked at it in years. Judge Thomas said he disavowed the message in the article insofar as it meant that natural law should be a basis for a court's ruling.

When Mr. Leahy asked Judge Thomas if a fetus has any constitutional rights, he paused for several seconds before saying that he did not believe there were any cases that took that view but he would have to check. In fact, Roe v. Wade explicitly holds that a fetus does not have constitutional rights.

Under repeated questioning from Mr. Leahy, Judge Thomas said that he did not believe he had ever expressed an opinion about Roe even in private nor had he ever formulated a personal opinion on the case in the 18 years since it was decided.

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/12/us/the-thomas-hearings-thomas-undergoes-tough-questioning-on-past-remarks.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That says a lot of things, but they're all bad and about the Republican party.

You really think if RBG had died in February of 08, Harry Reid would have put a Bush SCOTUS nominee up for a vote?  Come on now.  

  • Like 1
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...