No Judges for YOU!-Dems to block ALL appointments

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
How dare you do what we do



And another....



Are you talking to me?



Sounds to me like some folks are letting their anger get the best of them. There isn't a single president I can think of that hasn't used the recess appointment to push through at least a couple of people. In another thread on this topic I even made mention of some very famous recess appointments.



The Democrats have declared that they will refuse to confirm ANY judges because of their anger over two Bush recess appointments. I think it will make them an easy target for an obstructionist label and make them look extreme.



What do you think?



Nick
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 36
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Every politician has there day. Bush doesn't have a solid majority supporting his nominees in congress and the dems are free to use that advantage just as he used his recess appointments advantage. Its Real Politik...
  • Reply 2 of 36
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Bush uses recess appointments to circumvent the process.



    Democrats use process to block Bush because they didn't like Bush circumventing them and the process.



    I don't see what the big fvcking deal is here.
  • Reply 3 of 36
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Not exactly Athens on the Potomac.
  • Reply 4 of 36
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,449member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    Every politician has there day. Bush doesn't have a solid majority supporting his nominees in congress and the dems are free to use that advantage just as he used his recess appointments advantage. Its Real Politik...



    Actually all the judges, including those who were appointing during congressional recess, have solid majorities supporting them. The up or down vote doesn't occur because the judicial appointments are being blocked in committee. That and the threat of a filibuster.



    Neither denote a lack of majority support. If you only consider "solid" majority support to be 60 votes, then neither party would get much done since it is rare that either party has a filibuster proof majority.



    Nick
  • Reply 5 of 36
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    I just really can't understand what is so threatening about a person having their day for an up-or-down vote. If these Dem's are all about "democracy" and "power to the people" then why don't these candidates ever get a chance to be voted on by the entire body? How "democratic" is it for a few senators to deny a person and the people a vote on a candidate?



    Utter garbage.
  • Reply 6 of 36
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    similarly how is it democracy when the president has essentially dictatorial power during a recess?
  • Reply 7 of 36
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    similarly how is it democracy when the president has essentially dictatorial power during a recess?



    Yea that's what it is
  • Reply 8 of 36
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,909member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    similarly how is it democracy when the president has essentially dictatorial power during a recess?



    The Democrats have blocked judges for no other reason than blind political hatred and ambition. They've even done so with minorities like Miguel Estrada, whom they claim to stand for.



    Bush has sat idly by for 3 years while the Dems have obstructed all progress on filling bench seats. They are blocking these nomineees because they KNOW they'll be confirmed. They will not allow the possibilty of one of these guys being appointed to the Supreme Court 3-4 years from now.



    This current threat is the most extreme tactic I've ever seen. They are literally and openly going to obstruct judge confirmations is pure political retribution.



    This cannot be defended.
  • Reply 9 of 36
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Except that this is just how the Dems are countering a tactic the GOP have been using for decades. Once Nixon realized that his domestic agenda was going nowhere and that the population was firmly with the Dems on social issues, the Nixon White House devised a strategy for stuffing the bench at all Federal levels with conservative ideologues. Unless a judge committed a crime there would be a legion of Ditto Heads ready to deprive Americans of their rights for generations to come.
  • Reply 10 of 36
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    All I hear is whimpering...



    If Bush was putting up judges who had absolute general appeal then there would be no reason for using the mechanisms both he and the dems are using. There is no reason to go over the senate unless it is an emergency unless you are trying to enforce an ideology on the bench. Similarly, there is no reason to filibuster or block nominees in committee unless you are trying to prevent an ideology from getting on the bench.



    It is simply a fact that the canidates Bush has put forward do not represent the views the dems want to have on the bench. It is simply a fact that the reason for this is that Bush is simply trying to push forward whatever ideologies his most powerful supporters happen to have.



    Its just politics on both sides. There really is nothing to see here...
  • Reply 11 of 36
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    .....Bush has sat idly by for 3 years while the Dems have obstructed all progress on filling bench seats.



    Uh, 176 nominees have been confirmed without drama. 6 have been blocked, and 2 of those are on the bench via the recess appointment.



    Breath.
  • Reply 12 of 36
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,449member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by HOM

    Except that this is just how the Dems are countering a tactic the GOP have been using for decades. Once Nixon realized that his domestic agenda was going nowhere and that the population was firmly with the Dems on social issues, the Nixon White House devised a strategy for stuffing the bench at all Federal levels with conservative ideologues. Unless a judge committed a crime there would be a legion of Ditto Heads ready to deprive Americans of their rights for generations to come.



    I suggest you do a little reading into the history of the judiciary. Let me suggest a little reading regarding... oh....1937....



    Judicial stacking



    Your stripes are showing. When Democratic presidents appoint judges, it is their duty. When Republican presidents appoint judges, it is judicial stacking?!?



    Interesting view.



    Likewise as we have seen from this thread, in most instances the judges have to be confirmed by Congress. Republicans didn't even control the House of Reps until 1994. How could Nixon carry out such a plan when there were Democratic majorities in both houses? The same majorities that helped drive him to resignation?



    Nixon

    Ford

    Reagan

    Bush

    Bush jr



    Carter

    Clinton



    Perhaps when you look at who has been president since Nixon, that would explain the appointments. Then again, this could be argued that the will of the people is being carried out since, well they elect these gentlemen.



    Nick
  • Reply 13 of 36
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,449member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    All I hear is whimpering...



    If Bush was putting up judges who had absolute general appeal then there would be no reason for using the mechanisms both he and the dems are using. There is no reason to go over the senate unless it is an emergency unless you are trying to enforce an ideology on the bench. Similarly, there is no reason to filibuster or block nominees in committee unless you are trying to prevent an ideology from getting on the bench.



    It is simply a fact that the canidates Bush has put forward do not represent the views the dems want to have on the bench. It is simply a fact that the reason for this is that Bush is simply trying to push forward whatever ideologies his most powerful supporters happen to have.



    Its just politics on both sides. There really is nothing to see here...




    Clinton used recess appointments an average of 20 times PER YEAR during his term in office.



    That is 160 times during his 8 years in office. Bush has used it THREE.



    Yep, sounds like Bush is just ignoring historical precident, but of course in the wrong direction.



    Nick
  • Reply 14 of 36
    k squaredk squared Posts: 608member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    similarly how is it democracy when the president has essentially dictatorial power during a recess?



    Well, it's power given to the president in the Constitution. Plus, the recess appointments still need to be voted on during the next Congress.
  • Reply 15 of 36
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I suggest you do a little reading into the history of the judiciary. Let me suggest a little reading regarding... oh....1937....



    Judicial stacking



    Your stripes are showing. When Democratic presidents appoint judges, it is their duty. When Republican presidents appoint judges, it is judicial stacking?!?



    Interesting view.





    Yeah, what FDR did was wrong too. I don't see why people on both sides can't admit when one of their guys does something bad. FDR shouldn't have packed the courts. But that doesn't negate the fact the packing the courts to overturn popular social issues has been an GOP tactic since Nixon.



    Oh, and please show me where I said anything about duty. It should be easy, you quoted my entire post.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Likewise as we have seen from this thread, in most instances the judges have to be confirmed by Congress. Republicans didn't even control the House of Reps until 1994. How could Nixon carry out such a plan when there were Democratic majorities in both houses? The same majorities that helped drive him to resignation?





    Seriously, I would pay more attention to what you had to say if you knew what you were taking about. Why don't you tell me how many Federal judges have been approved by the House of Representatives.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Nixon

    Ford

    Reagan

    Bush

    Bush jr



    Carter

    Clinton



    Perhaps when you look at who has been president since Nixon, that would explain the appointments. Then again, this could be argued that the will of the people is being carried out since, well they elect these gentlemen.



    Nick




    Until Clinton and the GOP stall machine took over appointing judges was a civilized affair. Nixon and his team realized that they weren't going to win on domestic issues so why not take a play out of the Dems playbook and use the courts to overturn laws that you don't like.
  • Reply 16 of 36
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by HOM

    Except that this is just how the Dems are countering a tactic the GOP have been using for decades. Once Nixon realized that his domestic agenda was going nowhere and that the population was firmly with the Dems on social issues, the Nixon White House devised a strategy for stuffing the bench at all Federal levels with conservative ideologues. Unless a judge committed a crime there would be a legion of Ditto Heads ready to deprive Americans of their rights for generations to come.



    Yea but the people VOTED for those candidates. Reagan Bush and Bush again were elected in part to select judges. The democrats just hate The Constitution when it doesn't go their way. Why do the democrats hate america?
  • Reply 17 of 36
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,909member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by HOM

    Except that this is just how the Dems are countering a tactic the GOP have been using for decades. Once Nixon realized that his domestic agenda was going nowhere and that the population was firmly with the Dems on social issues, the Nixon White House devised a strategy for stuffing the bench at all Federal levels with conservative ideologues. Unless a judge committed a crime there would be a legion of Ditto Heads ready to deprive Americans of their rights for generations to come.



    How has the GOP been using these tactics? And really...you're arguing that the Federal benches are CONSERVATIVE?



    But wait, your post gets even better: Do you honestly believe that conservatives wish to "deprive Americans of their rights"?
  • Reply 18 of 36
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,909member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    All I hear is whimpering...



    If Bush was putting up judges who had absolute general appeal then there would be no reason for using the mechanisms both he and the dems are using. There is no reason to go over the senate unless it is an emergency unless you are trying to enforce an ideology on the bench. Similarly, there is no reason to filibuster or block nominees in committee unless you are trying to prevent an ideology from getting on the bench.



    It is simply a fact that the canidates Bush has put forward do not represent the views the dems want to have on the bench. It is simply a fact that the reason for this is that Bush is simply trying to push forward whatever ideologies his most powerful supporters happen to have.



    Its just politics on both sides. There really is nothing to see here...




    These are not radically conservative judges. Even if so, that's Bush's perogative as President. The confirmation process is supposed to address qualifications, not politics.



    As far as broad based appeal, that's crap. These judges would be confirmed if public hearings were held and the Dems know it. This is the rule of the minority party, plain and simple. It's Democrats using a technicality to obstruct the majority's wishes.
  • Reply 19 of 36
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,909member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by HOM

    Yeah, what FDR did was wrong too. I don't see why people on both sides can't admit when one of their guys does something bad. FDR shouldn't have packed the courts. But that doesn't negate the fact the packing the courts to overturn popular social issues has been an GOP tactic since Nixon.



    Oh, and please show me where I said anything about duty. It should be easy, you quoted my entire post.







    Seriously, I would pay more attention to what you had to say if you knew what you were taking about. Why don't you tell me how many Federal judges have been approved by the House of Representatives.







    Until Clinton and the GOP stall machine took over appointing judges was a civilized affair. Nixon and his team realized that they weren't going to win on domestic issues so why not take a play out of the Dems playbook and use the courts to overturn laws that you don't like.




    Was it civilized for Clarence Thomas? And really...can you honestly be arguing that it's the GOP that legislates through the bench?
  • Reply 20 of 36
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Again, the Republicans should look at this with a twinkle in their eye. The Democratic party is finally maturing and using logical and perfectly legitamate methods to block people judicial picks they disagree with. Who cares?



    It is the beauty of politics. The door swings both ways...
Sign In or Register to comment.