• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judicial Vacancies: The Trial Courts

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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. ;)
 
It isn't petty partisanship, it's a concern for the future welfare of the country.


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.
 
Just because you don't like Obamas political idealogy Is not a good reason of preventing judicial nominees from being appointed.

Having judges on the bench who share O's legal philosophy would de disastrous for the country for decades.
 
Just because you don't like Obamas political idealogy Is not a good reason of preventing judicial nominees from being appointed.

Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, two words: Manual Estrada.
 
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.

I know about a number of the district court nominees. But do you really lack confidence in O's ability to identify lawyers who adhere to his judicial philosophy?
 
And doing nothing makes a broken judicial system even worse.

What's "broken" about the judicial system, aside from the stream of horrific decisions emanating from the circuit courts and from SCOTUS?
 
Back
Top Bottom