- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 20,738
- Reaction score
- 6,290
- Location
- Sunnyvale California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
These pair of links highlight a growing problem that surprisingly no one seems to pay attention to: that there are currently a record number of federal court vacancies and very few judicial nominees being appointed to fill these seats.
Federal Judicial Vacancies: The Trial Courts | Brennan Center for Justice
Court Vacancies | Why Courts Matter
now i believe the job of filling judicial vacancys is one of the senates responsibility's. so my question is what is going on?
Apparently the President is not capable of appointing nominees whom the Senate wishes to confirm.
is it also the reponsibility of the individual senators to nominate judicial candidates to fill empty judges seats in their states
Look, so long as O is President, vacancies are better.
So why are you in favor of a broken judicary that is struggling with increased case loads and not enough judges to handle them all
Because I don't want Obama appointees with life tenure.
Because I don't want Obama appointees with life tenure.
This has been a problem since at least Reagan (and possibly longer), through every President and through every Congress.
Essentially, too many people... some in this thread, even... willing to sacrifice the overall running and good of the country over petty partisanship.
It isn't petty partisanship, it's a concern for the future welfare of the country.
Just because you don't like Obamas political idealogy Is not a good reason of preventing judicial nominees from being appointed.
Actually, it is one of the best. These appointments tend to have very long term consequences. While the president indeed has the power to appoint anyone, that does not mean that they must be approved. Before you go into the "injustice" of using political ploys and bending "the rules", consider how many House bills make it to the Senate floor for a vote.
But isn't one of the senates jobs to give advice and consent to the president over judicial appointees, maybe advising the president to consider appointing someone that senator recommended?
Absent consent, the advice is quite clear - appoint someone else.
He who governs least governs best!
It isn't petty partisanship, it's a concern for the future welfare of the country.
Just because you don't like Obamas political idealogy Is not a good reason of preventing judicial nominees from being appointed.
Just because you don't like Obamas political idealogy Is not a good reason of preventing judicial nominees from being appointed.
It isn't petty partisanship, it's a concern for the future welfare of the country.
Having judges on the bench who share O's legal philosophy would de disastrous for the country for decades.
You never said nor asked about one of the potential appointees therefore know nothing of them at all. You just threw them in the trash because of who the president is. That is pretty much the very definition of petty partisanship.
Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, two words: Manual Estrada.
And doing nothing makes a broken judicial system even worse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?