StPaulHusker Posted June 4, 2013 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? 2016 Presidential election win? Link to comment
Junior Posted June 4, 2013 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? 2016 Presidential election win? They'll need legitimate candidates that appeal to more than the standard old white guy demographic. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 They'll need legitimate candidates that appeal to more than the standard old white guy demographic. They just need to nominate a Real Conservative™ and they'll win in a landslide. It's these RINOs that are the problem . . . not GOP policy. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 4, 2013 Author 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. That and this court will probably be hearing some extremely important cases over the next few years . . . Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 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. That's because both parties have done this and if the republicans come out and speak against this it will blow up in their face and I'm sure they know this. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 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. That's because both parties have done this and if the republicans come out and speak against this it will blow up in their face and I'm sure they know this. Yes, and it's maddening. It may be more prevalent today than ever before, but it's been used A LOT, to the detriment of the people, by both parties. Obama is trying to bust this practice with this move, but what are the ramifications for the future? Obama takes it this step. The next president takes it a step further, the next president a step further, and where are we? I shudder to think what these people are going to do to us in the name of party-first politics. Sometimes I think a revolution - hopefully peaceful like Ghandi's or MLK's, is inevitable. Or a dictatorship along the lines of Julius Caesar. Something's gonna give, and there are distinct parallels between our gridlocked partisan politics today and what the Romans were going through circa 47 BC. Anyone wondering where we're (potentially) headed, just look at that era. 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 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? Abdication, suicide, or a rope on the east portico............? Link to comment
Someone Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 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. IIRC, at least 1 of the nominees served in the Bush administration. Seem like all the candidates he is offering are highly respected and qualified. Link to comment
Junior Posted July 28, 2013 Share Posted July 28, 2013 http://www.slate.com...nators_try.html Cornelia “Nina” Pillard is President Obama’s pick for one of three vacant seats on the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit. She is a well-respected professor at Georgetown Law School; co-director of its Supreme Court Institute; a former lawyer at the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Justice Department; and a successful Supreme Court litigator. She is also a “feminist.” A “feminist” insofar as she has spent part of her career advocating for women’s equality (including a successful brief challenging the men-only admissions policy at the Virginia Military Institute, and a successful challenge to gender-biased family leave policies). Pillard’s “radical feminism” appears largely to take the form of seeking equality for women, which would certainly be a disqualifying feature of her advocacy work. If it were 1854. Link to comment
Recommended Posts