carlfense Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Storms a brewin'. President Obama on Tuesday called on the Senate to swiftly confirm three new nominees to the influential and understaffed U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-calls-on-senate-to-quickly-confirm-3-judicial-nominees/2013/06/04/0a04e18c-cd27-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html Link to comment
QMany Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Obama said, “I didn’t create these seats. I didn’t just wake up some day and say, ‘Let’s add three seats to the District’s Court of Appeals.’ These are open seats, and the Constitution demands that I nominate qualified individuals to fill those seats. What I’m doing today is my job. I need the Senate to do its job.” BENCH-SLAP! 2 Link to comment
husker_99 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Monday, “It’s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda.” Obama rejected this criticism on Tuesday, saying that those who suggest he is “court-packing” do not know their history. Obama noted that the term dates to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who added seats to the Supreme Court to help advance his political agenda. So he rejects he is trying to court pack but yet points to FDR who did it to court pack. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Obama is trying to destroy the filibuster. Pretty clear what's going on here. What's funny is that neither Obama nor the Republicans will talk about that. Link to comment
QMany Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Monday, “It’s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda.” Obama rejected this criticism on Tuesday, saying that those who suggest he is “court-packing” do not know their history. Obama noted that the term dates to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who added seats to the Supreme Court to help advance his political agenda. So he rejects he is trying to court pack but yet points to FDR who did it to court pack. He is distinguishing what he is doing, filling vacant seats, to what the term "court-packing" originally meant, creating seats out of thin air. I thought that was clear. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Monday, “It’s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda.” Obama rejected this criticism on Tuesday, saying that those who suggest he is “court-packing” do not know their history. Obama noted that the term dates to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who added seats to the Supreme Court to help advance his political agenda. So he rejects he is trying to court pack but yet points to FDR who did it to court pack. He is distinguishing what he is doing, filling vacant seats, to what the term "court-packing" originally meant, creating seats out of thin air. I thought that was clear. It was very clear. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 These seats have been vacant for most of his term. He can't get nominations confirmed through a senate that his party controls? Link to comment
husker_99 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Monday, “It’s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda.” Obama rejected this criticism on Tuesday, saying that those who suggest he is “court-packing” do not know their history. Obama noted that the term dates to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who added seats to the Supreme Court to help advance his political agenda. So he rejects he is trying to court pack but yet points to FDR who did it to court pack. He is distinguishing what he is doing, filling vacant seats, to what the term "court-packing" originally meant, creating seats out of thin air. I thought that was clear. which they don't even need filled. those same seats were vacant most of his terms anyways. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 These seats have been vacant for most of his term. He can't get nominations confirmed through a senate that his party controls? Ever heard of the term "filibuster?" 2 Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 which they don't even need filled. Has something changed since Republicans voted to fill all 11 spots a few years ago? (Something other than the person doing the nominating?) Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 Obama is trying to destroy the filibuster. Pretty clear what's going on here. What's funny is that neither Obama nor the Republicans will talk about that. Exactly right. This fight isn't just about who will hear EPA cases, etc. This is the first move in confronting the unprecedented obstruction in the Senate. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 So he rejects he is trying to court pack but yet points to FDR who did it to court pack. Nominating judges for existing positions isn't court packing. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Yes, I know what a filibuster is. I'm not taking all the blame away from Republicans because they have acted like children at times. But, when there are two sides that are at odds like the Dems and Republicans are in Washington are right now, I almost always find that both sides are at fault. Part of the President's (and congressmen's) job is to work politically with the other side. Sure they are going to have disagreements. But, you figure out a way to get things done. The Republicans disagree with something in Washington and it's constantly the same story from the Dems. They just throw their hands up and go....waaaa...they aren't playing nice. Both sides need to grow up. I have no problem with the nominations for whatever seats needs to be filled. If the seats are there...fill them. How this usually works (even when the Dems are the opposition) if the President wants something done, give the other side something they want. Link to comment
NUance Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Judges at this appeals court face confirmation hurdles that are tougher, in some ways, than actual Supreme Court justices. Now President Obama has a plan to finally fill the vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I guess it's a tougher vetting process because the DC Circuit is a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 I have no problem with the nominations for whatever seats needs to be filled. If the seats are there...fill them. How this usually works (even when the Dems are the opposition) if the President wants something done, give the other side something they want. What do you think the GOP would accept in return for confirming these three? Link to comment
Recommended Posts