Justice Kennedy

[baldo]

Let's keep the story straight here, fellas.

I agree and since this is from the article you quoted I know you will too.

Will lavishes praise upon Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who deftly outmaneuvered Democratic attempts to pack the federal courts. “To prevent Republicans from reciprocating with filibusters against Obama’s packing-by-enlargement of the nation’s second-most-important court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,


Thwarting the Democrats plan and the actions of the Democrat's already done does not qualify as starting the change or instituting the change in rules. Republicans they were only smart enough to outmaneuver the Democrats plan. This is of course according to your article.

I don't think the Democrats have no spine, they have sold out the US even to letting Hillary be the head of the Democratic party, her funding it and running it before the election.

 The problem is they have no platform, no direction and sold out to socialists. I forgot corrupt with Debbie Wasserman Schultz bringing in foreign nationals to run the servers at the DNC and them in turn taking the information along with all the emails, passwords to their home country and threatening to release that information. Why would anyone want the Democratic party at this point. Of course this says nothing of how much did the Democrats know of the Hillary pay for play scam and Waters inciting violence against people and the list goes on.

I will also remind everyone of the first thing they would do is repeal that measly tax cut and raise taxes to help the illegals.

OH and Pelosi applauding the winning of very left young socialist.

Just so I cannot be accused of being Republican I am neither really Democrat or Republican, the same coin different sides really.

Chain of events from your article

1. Obama enlarged the D.C. Circuit Court, to create more seats he could fill with his nominees
2. Republicans retaliated by filibustering his judicial nominees
3. Senate Democrats changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster of Court nominees, except for the Supreme Court
4. McConnell eliminated the exception for filibustering the Supreme Court

Like I said, keep it straight.

You conveniently decided to omit the very next paragraphs...

"So the history, as described by Will today, is:
1. Obama enlarged the D.C. Circuit Court, to create more seats he could fill with his nominees
2. Republicans retaliated by filibustering his judicial nominees
3. Senate Democrats changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster of Court nominees, except for the Supreme Court
4. McConnell eliminated the exception for filibustering the Supreme Court

First, Step 1 never happened. It is a pure figment of Will’s imagination — or, far more likely, it is a lie McConnell told Will that Will uncritically conveys. Court-packing is a pretty serious violation of political norms — if one party can change the number of seats on a court, they can quickly seize the ability to manipulate its power balance.

But Obama did not propose enlarging the D.C. Circuit. Instead, he nominated judges to fill three existing vacancies. Republican senators filibustered these nominees. Republicans didn’t argue that Obama’s choices were unqualified or too extreme. Instead they took the novel position that Obama had no right to nominate anybody, and instituted a blanket filibuster against all his nominees for the court. They proposed to eliminate the three open seats, which was itself a form of court-packing: Altering the number of seats on a court in order to manipulate its balance is court-packing, whether it’s done by adding to or subtracting from the number of seats.

In an Orwellian twist, Republicans at the time described Obama’s plan to nominate judges for the existing vacancies as “court-packing.” Again, as Politifact pointed out at the time, Obama was not packing the court, because nobody had ever described filling existing vacancies as “court-packing.” Now, the McConnell version passed on by Will today not only repeats the lie that Obama “packed” the courts, it extends it by pretending Obama wanted to add new seats to the court.

The rest of Will’s narrative is hardly more accurate. Republicans didn’t “reciprocate” Obama’s completely imaginary court-packing by filibustering his judicial nominees. They instituted a filibuster of all his nominees first. Democrats then retaliated by eliminating the judicial filibuster. Once Republicans won a Senate majority in 2014, they slowed down judicial confirmations to a historically low rate, coming close to their total blockade without quite approaching it."

Here's the link , if you'd like to read it again...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/mcconnell-stole-obamas-court-seats-and-gave-them-to-trump.html

And I think it's far more likely that McConnell lied through his teeth....but I digress.

[F6Dave]

I read an interesting article yesterday.  It said Schumer made a huge blunder by filibustering Gorsuch last year.  Gorsuch was so likeable and the hearings went so well that his filibuster appeared very partisan and obstructionist, and made it easy for McConnell to use the nuclear option.

Chuck's filibuster gained the democrats nothing, as Gorsuch replaced the like-minded justice Scalia.  And it lost them the filibuster.  If they'd left it in place, they could still use it now, and it would be tougher for McConnell to get rid of this time.  Since this justice will likely change the balance of the court, eliminating the filibuster now might have appeared more partisan.  The dems could also have claimed:  'since Gorsuch was approved with the filibuster in place, why eliminate it this time?'

But Schumer threw that all away.  Thanks Chuck!

[Serk]

NFL Official A changes the rules of football so that you only have to go 80 yards to score a touchdown.

NFL Official B later revises the rules again so that you only have to go 79 yards to score a touchdown.

Which official is responsible for lessening the requirements to score a touchdown from the previous 100 yards, Official A or Official B?

[baldo]

NFL Official A changes the rules of football so that you only have to go 80 yards to score a touchdown.

NFL Official B later revises the rules again so that you only have to go 79 yards to score a touchdown.

Which official is responsible for lessening the requirements to score a touchdown from the previous 100 yards, Official A or Official B?

What's your point?

[The emperor has no clothes]

NFL Official A changes the rules of football so that you only have to go 80 yards to score a touchdown.

NFL Official B later revises the rules again so that you only have to go 79 yards to score a touchdown.

Which official is responsible for lessening the requirements to score a touchdown from the previous 100 yards, Official A or Official B?

A football analogy from an admitted “non sportsballer” is akin to heresy. 

[Serk]

NFL Official A changes the rules of football so that you only have to go 80 yards to score a touchdown.

NFL Official B later revises the rules again so that you only have to go 79 yards to score a touchdown.

Which official is responsible for lessening the requirements to score a touchdown from the previous 100 yards, Official A or Official B?

A football analogy from an admitted “non sportsballer” is akin to heresy. 

One of the rules of analogies is to use something your audience is familiar with...

And yeah, I had to google the rules of hand-egg to make sure I was using the right terms and numbers and stuff... 

Oh, and I'm a proud Born Again Heretic anyway... (Used to have that sticker on a previous helmet even)

[..]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKiD5Zd3FxU

[¿spoom]

Actually, if you think about it, the republicans aren't strategizing very well.  If they don't successfully confirm a replacement before the election, it would likely push conservatives and republicans to the polls.

In a checker game, perhaps, but there are enough variables that I would appreciate the new SCOTUS pick selected yesterday and seated tomorrow if that were possible. Bird in the hand kind of thing. RBG already sleeps through much of her workday, wouldn't be surprised if they hold a small mirror to her mouth when they come back from lunch. If by some miracle she is still on the bench prior to the next Presidential election, I think that should be enough to motivate voter. After former President Obama got "wise Latina voice" Sotmayor on the court, both sides should admit the SVOTUS isn't about the Constitution anymore. It's just another prize to collect.

[old2soon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKiD5Zd3FxU

                     THIS sounds zackly like when "they" figured out Trump was indeed gonna Be the next POTUS. MAYBE just MAYBE the hollyweirds and others like them will in FACT Leave! Nah-couldn't git THAT Lucky!  RIDE SAFE.

[Robert]

I did reread the article and it was well not really truthful so I went and looked at the article below that laid the argument out in another way. It still gave Obama the edge but was not as clear cut as stated.

Obama will leave office with 329 of his judicial nominees confirmed to lifetime posts on federal courts. That includes two U.S. Supreme Court justices and four judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the two most powerful courts in the nation. Because of Obama, Democratic appointees now have a 7-4 advantage on the D.C. panel, and those judges will play a major role in deciding cases during the Trump administration related to environmental regulations, health care, national security, consumer protections and challenges to executive orders.

Obama also tilted the partisan makeup of circuit courts. Nine of the country’s 13 appeals courts now have majority Democratic appointees, compared with just one when he took office in 2009.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/05/chuck-grassley/barack-obama-trying-pack-dc-circuit-court-appeals/

This below is interesting
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-judicial-legacy_us_586c1944e4b0de3a08f9eb1f

Last February, an Obama appointee on a federal appeals court in Georgia swayed a vote to reject challenges to the Affordable Care Act that would have allowed religious organizations to opt out of health care coverage. In February 2015, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee who became the second African-American federal judge in Mississippi, gave a powerful speech to three young white men before sentencing them for beating and killing a black man while yelling, “White power!” A federal appeals court in Virginia ruled in April 2016 that a transgender high school student who was born female could sue his school board for discrimination after the school barred him from using the boys’ bathroom.


The truth is legislation from the bench is not something either side wants and yet we seem to be more and more finding this kind of thing from both sides.

[Jess from VA]

The truth is legislation from the bench is not something either side wants and yet we seem to be more and more finding this kind of thing from both sides.

Indeed this true.  But when your nation has 100K laws and regulations governing every aspect of daily life and business in America, you by necessity end up with courts deciding what they mean, or how they read together, or what their legislative intent was, or whether they are constitutional.  And we do have a litigious society.  And every level of government from national to local also has a DA and City attorney and the taxpayers get to pay for all their litigiousness.  And private business has their own legal teams, and we pay all those costs as passed on to us in their goods and services.  

We have too many law and regulations.  Congress earns its money (looks busy) by passing more and more, but almost never take any of the old ones off the books.

Whoever said the first thing to do was to go out shoot all the lawyers may have been on to something.    

(most judges are lawyers)

[Oss]

easy for you Jess, you are retired drawing a govmt pension

I am still slugging thru humongous caseloads appearing in multiple courts every day


Both sides hate Trump because he is not one of them, but the Democrats are truly scared because they are starting to realize fear campaigns dont work like they used to.

The Republicans are scared because their constituents are following their failures.

Mid Term elections will be so interesting/ My prediction is Trump will continue to tweet,
the economy will continue to boom, jobs will be created and come November the free crap army will have less not more clout.  Meantime the seat will be filled as it should be and the world will not end.

Women will still abort pregnancy in record numbers, welfare rolls and medicaid costs will be out of control and the Democrats will try to block the wall which Bill Clinton said we needed (but who remembers history anyway) and you can use whatever bathroom you want if there is a line.

[Rams]

Let's keep the story straight here, fellas.

I agree and since this is from the article you quoted I know you will too.

Will lavishes praise upon Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who deftly outmaneuvered Democratic attempts to pack the federal courts. “To prevent Republicans from reciprocating with filibusters against Obama’s packing-by-enlargement of the nation’s second-most-important court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,


Thwarting the Democrats plan and the actions of the Democrat's already done does not qualify as starting the change or instituting the change in rules. Republicans they were only smart enough to outmaneuver the Democrats plan. This is of course according to your article.

I don't think the Democrats have no spine, they have sold out the US even to letting Hillary be the head of the Democratic party, her funding it and running it before the election.

 The problem is they have no platform, no direction and sold out to socialists. I forgot corrupt with Debbie Wasserman Schultz bringing in foreign nationals to run the servers at the DNC and them in turn taking the information along with all the emails, passwords to their home country and threatening to release that information. Why would anyone want the Democratic party at this point. Of course this says nothing of how much did the Democrats know of the Hillary pay for play scam and Waters inciting violence against people and the list goes on.

I will also remind everyone of the first thing they would do is repeal that measly tax cut and raise taxes to help the illegals.

OH and Pelosi applauding the winning of very left young socialist.

Just so I cannot be accused of being Republican I am neither really Democrat or Republican, the same coin different sides really.

Chain of events from your article

1. Obama enlarged the D.C. Circuit Court, to create more seats he could fill with his nominees
2. Republicans retaliated by filibustering his judicial nominees
3. Senate Democrats changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster of Court nominees, except for the Supreme Court
4. McConnell eliminated the exception for filibustering the Supreme Court

Like I said, keep it straight.

You conveniently decided to omit the very next paragraphs...

"So the history, as described by Will today, is:
1. Obama enlarged the D.C. Circuit Court, to create more seats he could fill with his nominees
2. Republicans retaliated by filibustering his judicial nominees
3. Senate Democrats changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster of Court nominees, except for the Supreme Court
4. McConnell eliminated the exception for filibustering the Supreme Court

First, Step 1 never happened. It is a pure figment of Will’s imagination — or, far more likely, it is a lie McConnell told Will that Will uncritically conveys. Court-packing is a pretty serious violation of political norms — if one party can change the number of seats on a court, they can quickly seize the ability to manipulate its power balance.

But Obama did not propose enlarging the D.C. Circuit. Instead, he nominated judges to fill three existing vacancies. Republican senators filibustered these nominees. Republicans didn’t argue that Obama’s choices were unqualified or too extreme. Instead they took the novel position that Obama had no right to nominate anybody, and instituted a blanket filibuster against all his nominees for the court. They proposed to eliminate the three open seats, which was itself a form of court-packing: Altering the number of seats on a court in order to manipulate its balance is court-packing, whether it’s done by adding to or subtracting from the number of seats.

In an Orwellian twist, Republicans at the time described Obama’s plan to nominate judges for the existing vacancies as “court-packing.” Again, as Politifact pointed out at the time, Obama was not packing the court, because nobody had ever described filling existing vacancies as “court-packing.” Now, the McConnell version passed on by Will today not only repeats the lie that Obama “packed” the courts, it extends it by pretending Obama wanted to add new seats to the court.

The rest of Will’s narrative is hardly more accurate. Republicans didn’t “reciprocate” Obama’s completely imaginary court-packing by filibustering his judicial nominees. They instituted a filibuster of all his nominees first. Democrats then retaliated by eliminating the judicial filibuster. Once Republicans won a Senate majority in 2014, they slowed down judicial confirmations to a historically low rate, coming close to their total blockade without quite approaching it."

Here's the link , if you'd like to read it again...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/mcconnell-stole-obamas-court-seats-and-gave-them-to-trump.html

And I think it's far more likely that McConnell lied through his teeth....but I digress.

The Left side of the aisle started this by changing the rules the institution had operated under for decades.  They were warned to not go there or they would eventually regret it.   They went there anyway to get their way.    They got one upped and now the left is pissing and moaning about it.

If I remember correctly, sympathy is located in the dictionary between swine and syrup.   You'll find it there.

Rams

[baldo]

Ok Ron,

Since you seem to keep on missing the point.

https://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

Why do you think the Dems decided to go with the nuclear option? Unprecedented obstructionism by the R's of anything Obama tried to do, primarily filling judicial positions. There is no shortage of information on the subject, it's very easy to find.

Do you really think the Dems just woke up one morning and decided it was a good day to change one of most time-honored rules of the Senate?

[Rams]

Ok Ron,

Since you seem to keep on missing the point.

https://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

Why do you think the Dems decided to go with the nuclear option? Unprecedented obstructionism by the R's of anything Obama tried to do, primarily filling judicial positions. There is no shortage of information on the subject, it's very easy to find.

Do you really think the Dems just woke up one morning and decided it was a good day to change one of most time-honored rules of the Senate?

No Bob,
I fully understand what happened and still know, the Dems changed the rules.   They got what they wanted by changing the rules of the institution and now are reaping the rewards.    They'll eventually get another "at  bat", maybe next time they will choose to stay with in the lines.

Apparently, you don't understand that the majority of voters (electoral college) didn't like what the Dems were doing.  The next national election showed the republican resistance was not only desired but expected.

Rams

[baldo]

I'm done.....

[Rams]

I'm done.....

 

Whenever one considers using "the nuclear option", one should know upfront that there will always be "fallout".
 Rams

[Moonshot_1]

Ok Ron,

Since you seem to keep on missing the point.

https://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

Why do you think the Dems decided to go with the nuclear option? Unprecedented obstructionism by the R's of anything Obama tried to do, primarily filling judicial positions. There is no shortage of information on the subject, it's very easy to find.

Do you really think the Dems just woke up one morning and decided it was a good day to change one of most time-honored rules of the Senate?

The numbers provided by the article mean nothing without context. If the judges nominated by Obama had reputations of legislating from the bench they would be filibustered till hell froze over and rightfully so.  We don't get any context from the article except a raw number devoid of any substance. This isn't a game of statistics. It is about character and substance and that isn't presented in the article. Just numbers.

[Serk]

(Yes, this is satire, but the best satire has a grain of truth to it!)

"Senate Democrats have vowed to make sure that any new nominee isn’t going to be beholden to outside influences like the Constitution, the founding fathers, or the rule of law. “We need judges to be advocates of progressive laws,” Senator Elizabeth Warren added. “Not people who will bow to the whims of the Constitution, pitting its extremist values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion against our agenda.”"

https://babylonbee.com/news/senate-democrats-demand-supreme-court-nominee-not-be-unduly-influenced-by-u-s-constitution/

[baldo]

Ok Ron,

Since you seem to keep on missing the point.

https://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

Why do you think the Dems decided to go with the nuclear option? Unprecedented obstructionism by the R's of anything Obama tried to do, primarily filling judicial positions. There is no shortage of information on the subject, it's very easy to find.

Do you really think the Dems just woke up one morning and decided it was a good day to change one of most time-honored rules of the Senate?

The numbers provided by the article mean nothing without context. If the judges nominated by Obama had reputations of legislating from the bench they would be filibustered till hell froze over and rightfully so.  We don't get any context from the article except a raw number devoid of any substance. This isn't a game of statistics. It is about character and substance and that isn't presented in the article. Just numbers.

That's all the article was intending to convey, the numbers. McConnell and his ilk were bound and determined from before Day 1 that they were going to block any and all efforts of Obama to get anything done.

[The emperor has no clothes]

(Yes, this is satire, but the best satire has a grain of truth to it!)

"Senate Democrats have vowed to make sure that any new nominee isn’t going to be beholden to outside influences like the Constitution, the founding fathers, or the rule of law. “We need judges to be advocates of progressive laws,” Senator Elizabeth Warren added. “Not people who will bow to the whims of the Constitution, pitting its extremist values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion against our agenda.”"

https://babylonbee.com/news/senate-democrats-demand-supreme-court-nominee-not-be-unduly-influenced-by-u-s-constitution/

it's a shame it wasn't "best satire"

[Rams]

Ok Ron,

Since you seem to keep on missing the point.

https://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

Why do you think the Dems decided to go with the nuclear option? Unprecedented obstructionism by the R's of anything Obama tried to do, primarily filling judicial positions. There is no shortage of information on the subject, it's very easy to find.

Do you really think the Dems just woke up one morning and decided it was a good day to change one of most time-honored rules of the Senate?

The numbers provided by the article mean nothing without context. If the judges nominated by Obama had reputations of legislating from the bench they would be filibustered till hell froze over and rightfully so.  We don't get any context from the article except a raw number devoid of any substance. This isn't a game of statistics. It is about character and substance and that isn't presented in the article. Just numbers.

That's all the article was intending to convey, the numbers. McConnell and his ilk were bound and determined from before Day 1 that they were going to block any and all efforts of Obama to get anything done.

Ok Bob,
One last time.  For the last four decades, the filibuster was the only defense the minority party had to fight appointments, bills ect....    Both parties used this tactic when they were in the minority.   It was, what it was.   Dirty Harry changed the status quo when he got the rule change.   

I realize you don't like the end result but, Mitch and other Republicans begged Durty Harry to not go there.   He did it anyway.   In this case, the Dems sowed the seeds and are now harvesting the crop.
It's really too bad they didn't realize the difference between seeds worthy of harvesting and weeds with thorns.

It really is, that simple.   Thank you Harry.   

Rams

[The emperor has no clothes]

"The mind sees what it wants to see"   

[Rams]

Some things are painfully obvious and yet still ignored.

It is, what it is.

Rams

[Gavin_Sons]

Some things are painfully obvious and yet still ignored.

It is, what it is.

Rams

   What is that word i'm looking for? double standard. We want to change the rules to benefit us then when it no longer benefits us we want to change it back. 

[f6john]

This appointment is going to be the Republicans “Obama Care”. The Republican side tried mightily to stop the abomination that was Obama Care to no avail, now the Dems are screaming about waiting until after the mid terms! Screw that, Trump and the Republicans are going to push ahead and the Dems are going to cry like the butt hurt babies they are. Dems need to stick to mining in the muck for something to stick Trump with, that’s all they’ve done for a year and a half with zero success.

I’m still expecting the general Democratic Party member to take a hard look at their party leadership and platform and say to themselves, wait a damn minute. I don’t expect a mass exit to switch to the Republican view of things but as a registered Democrat for 50 years I know the party is off the rails and except for some local races I haven’t vote for a Democrat in over 20 years. I think it was Bill Clinton, the first time, but I wised up the second go around.

Sadly the Republicans need to do some weeding out too.

[F6Dave]

This appointment is going to be the Republicans “Obama Care”. The Republican side tried mightily to stop the abomination that was Obama Care to no avail, now the Dems are screaming about waiting until after the mid terms! Screw that, Trump and the Republicans are going to push ahead and the Dems are going to cry like the butt hurt babies they are. Dems need to stick to mining in the muck for something to stick Trump with, that’s all they’ve done for a year and a half with zero success.

I’m still expecting the general Democratic Party member to take a hard look at their party leadership and platform and say to themselves, wait a damn minute. I don’t expect a mass exit to switch to the Republican view of things but as a registered Democrat for 50 years I know the party is off the rails and except for some local races I haven’t vote for a Democrat in over 20 years. I think it was Bill Clinton, the first time, but I wised up the second go around.

Sadly the Republicans need to do some weeding out too.

That's the second post I've read here from a Democrat who thinks the party has lost its way.  I was there myself several years ago.

It seems to me the party is throwing some of their traditional members, like blue collar workers, under the bus.  That's why Trump won:  he carried rust belt states the Republicans hadn't won in decades.  As the party moves further towards the far left fringe I'm sure many more will jump ship.

[The emperor has no clothes]

That's why Trump won:  he carried rust belt states the Republicans hadn't won in decades.

That and Clinton was a seriously flawed candidate. And don’t forget the Russian hacking and propaganda machine.

[Willow]

...
Do you really think the Dems just woke up one morning and decided it was a good day to change one of most time-honored rules of the Senate?

Well?? ... Yes.   

"The mind sees what it wants to see"   

Mirror, mirror on the wall ...   

[The emperor has no clothes]

...
Do you really think the Dems just woke up one morning and decided it was a good day to change one of most time-honored rules of the Senate?

Well?? ... Yes.   

"The mind sees what it wants to see"   

Mirror, mirror on the wall ...   

Who’s the fairest of all ?