Forum Thread

President Obama Daring Republicans To Filibuster Judicial Nominees

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 8 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The President has finally had it with Republican obstructionism with his judicial nominees and will be nominating three individuals to fill empty posts at what is known as our nations second highest court. The DC Court of Appeals has been understaffed for quite some time and the Republicans are doing everything in their power to keep the nomination and confirmation process at a stand still. The President finally listened to Senator Harry Reid, who has been urging the administration to aggressively fight the Republicans on this issue.

    While the Republicans are claiming that President Obama is trying to "pack the court," they are willfully ignoring the fact that the President is just trying to fill vacancies, not add extra judges to any court. There is a huge difference between court packing, as President Roosevelt famously tried to do with the Supreme Court when he submitted The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, and attempting to fill existing vacancies. President Roosevelt attempted to have legislation passed that would have given him the power to appoint an extra Supreme Court Justice for every current justice that was over 70 years and 6 months old. President Obama asserting his constitutional duty to fill judicial VACANCIES is a far, far cry from court packing and the Republicans should be called out on this.

    The main issue at hand here is that the Republicans are using their minority power to shape the court in their image. It's what Presidential adviser Dan Pfeiffer called "reverse court packing." He claimed that the Republican obstructionism was tantamount to them trying to figure out any way possible to keep as many conservative jurists in our federal court system by denying the administration votes on as many of their judicial nominees as possible. I'm just glad that the President has finally had enough of it and is going to take this fight right to the Republicans.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    All Presidents submitt nominee's to the various federal courts for confirmation, these nominee's almost always reflect the same ideals as the Presidents own political philosphy, the opposing party also almost always questions and vets these nominee's so as to insure that their particular poitical philosphy is also represented or at the worst situation not shaunted aside, these methods have been employed by both major parties since I don't when,of course to allivate this so-called problem,just allow thePresident to rule by fiat.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The Republicans have no choices in this. They have played the obstruction card so many times it is the only card they know how to play. What the president needs to do is play that card with them. When the Republicans say no to a candidate make them explain why. Then the Republicans come off looking like boobs.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Gems;
    The republicans do say why and whether or not its germane to the issue doesn't matter,it's either the nominee past rulings they will bring up or his political leanings, as if the nominee would agree with the republicans stance on their issue's , then of course,the President would not nominate them, there is no issue here,unless the press wants to make it so.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The Republicans feel bad press for them is the fault of the press while bad press for Democrats is their fault. When Bush put forth Roberts there wasn't much anyone could say but if Obama does that it's like somebody threw cold water on a litter of kittens. Watch the arguments the Republicans use as they will all be from talking heads within the Republican news bubble. Just like it was for the Benghazi hearings.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I agree with what you posted with the exception of Benghazi, that was a monumental screw-up made on behalf of the President,by his over zealous staff, who feared that it wouild impact the election, which I personally feel it would not have that kind of an effect, and perhaps the truth of the matter and some more cohesive leadership would have enhanced the election even more in the President's favor and maybe saved a couple of Governor's spots.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: All Presidents submitt nominee's to the various federal courts for confirmation, these nominee's almost always reflect the same ideals as the Presidents own political philosphy, the opposing party also almost always questions and vets these nominee's so as to insure that their particular poitical philosphy is also represented or at the worst situation not shaunted aside, these methods have been employed by both major parties since I don't when,of course to allivate this so-called problem,just allow thePresident to rule by fiat.
    This just isn't true. The opposing party does traditionally question and vet nominees, but never has a national party blocked so many nominees from moving forward. And we must remind ourselves that these are vacancies, not court packing. The President has a Constitutional duty to fill judicial vacancies and what the Republicans continue to do with this has never happened in our countries history.

    Also, I'd encourage you to look at the vote breakdown of the judicial appointees under the Bush Administration and how long each of these nominations were quote unquote "held up." I'm quite sure that most Democrats didn't agree with the philosophy of every judge that they voted yes for, but still believed in the Presidents prerogative to nominate who they want. That is what has been going on with both major parties since our countries founding.

    The Republicans have started a new exception to the norm with the stall tactics they are using now and it will be to their detriment. That is unless they get back into power and re-write the rules as they so often like to do.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It looks like the President is going to officially nominate three people to the DC Court tomorrow. It should be interesting how the Senate Republicans react. My guess is that they will throw a temper tantrum and say that it's court packing.

    Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/obama-dc-circuit_n_3380731.html