WTF!!!!! Obama nominating 3 Conservative judges

[bigdarryl]

Per Nicole Sandler who's sitting in for Randi and there all from GA. WTF!!! is wrong with him

[CatWoman]

1. civil rights leaders here are pretty pissed about it, too

President Obama's Disappointing Georgia Judicial Nominees

One nominee, Judge Michael Boggs, is a former state legislator who opposed the successful effort to remove the Confederate insignia from Georgia's state flag -- not a promising record for someone nominated to be a judge in a state whose population is nearly one-third African-American.

Another nominee, Mark Cohen, is an attorney who took the lead in defending Georgia's restrictive voter ID law. That's a strange choice from a president whose administration has been fighting in courts across the country to protect voters from suppressive laws, including Georgia's.

But it's not just who the president nominated; it's who he failed to nominate.

In a state with one of the highest African-American populations in the country, only one of the president's six nominees is a person of color. (Another African-American nominee, Natasha Perdew Silas, was blocked by Georgia's senators and not renominated this year.) This is especially egregious given that there have been only four African-American federal judges in the state's history, and never have more than two served at the same time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-watson-malachi/president-obamas-disappoi_b_4532534.html

[KittyWampus]

6. It's political horse-trading. I'm not "defending" it. Just saying> here's a relevant article

for anyone who wants to see what's going on. It's pretty ugly sausage making.


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/11/why-arent-there-more-black-federal-judges-in-alabama-florida-and-georgia/281322/

[JHB]

41. That article isn't too clear: what's being gained?

Who is the horse-trading with, and and what is the return?

[G_j]

11. I saw that

'nough said...

[brooklynite]

2. Standard policy is to nominate Judges who are approved by local Senators...

Not a lot of progressives in the Georgia Senate delegation.

[bigdarryl]

4. No fucking excuse

Instead of caving to the right wing he should be fighting for his principles and everyone wonders why his poll numbers are in the dump

[jberryhill]

5. Lol

Yeah, people really pay close attention to federal district judge nominations.

Name three federal judges in your district.

[Carolina]

16. Problem with that way

of thinking is that federal bench positions are for a lifetime. Such judges are well compensated with many benefits; and they do affect judicial temperament or activism, make decisions on important cases that may be appealed to the Supreme Court. And some such judges get nominated to SCOTUS themselves.

Congressmen and Senators can supply names for POTUS to nominate, then nominees have to be approved by the US Senate. This is a basic flaw in our tri-cameral system. There really is no check or balance when the judiciary is wholly dependent on elected officials and where, in some places, local judges run for office. But it is what it is

[KittyWampus]

7. his poll numbers are in the dump? LOL!

[okaawhatever]

14. Oh yeah, that way there will be liberal judges who don't get confirmed and if a Republican wins

in 2016 we'll have a bunch of uber conservative party hacks. Much better plan. The president doesn't have an endless supply of political capital.

[Tx4obama]

45. IF a GOPER wins in 2016 he'll have to pick from U.S. Senators' lists too. See Comments #23 and #36

[CrispyQ]

49. Firing up the base for 2014.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. It's more than "APPROVED BY" ...

the local Senators ... the President typical nominates FROM a list SUBMITTED BY the local Senators.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/judicial.cfm

[Jim Lane]

47. There's no requirement that the President accord any special deference to the state's Senators.

It's often done -- as you say, it's typical -- but not required. (From your link: "Potential nominees are sometimes identified and recommended by members of Congress.&quot

Furthermore, it's my impression (not completely sure) that in the past there's been more of a tendency toward effective bipartisanship. That is, a Senator of Party A, in making recommendations for nominations by a President of Party B, would identify qualified Party B people in his or her state. Since Obama's election, the Republicans have embarked on an unprecedented campaign of obstructionism against him. The "blue slip" procedure (described in your link) has been abused to hold up uncontested nominations.

Under these circumstances, Obama and the Senate leadership should recognize that the procedures that worked in the past assumed a certain level of mutual respect and accommodation, a level that is now absent. I hope that, with the partial overriding of the previous filibuster rule, we're seeing the first signs of that change.

[Gothmog]

54. Senator Leahy is respecting the blue slip

Unless the blue slip procedure is complied with, the nominees are not suppose to get a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. For now, Senator Leahy is honoring the blue slip procedure http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/12/30/a-legal-look-toward-2014-judicial-nominations-and-the-blue-slip-question/

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said he will uphold the tradition, “as long as the blue slip process is not being abused by home-state senators.”

But Mr. Leahy may face pressure to tweak the blue slip if there’s evidence Republicans are objecting to President Obama’s nominees for the sake of objecting, Mr. Wheeler said

[Gothmog]

52. The Blue Slip process is crazy but we are stuck with it

The right of a state senator to approve a judicial nominee is the blue slip procedure and that procedure was not affected by the filibuster reform

[sabrina 1]

55. I'm sure there are one or two he could have found if he looked hard enough.

Very important issue for the future. Voters don't generally worry about who their candidate might nominate to their cabinet, but that should be a critical question asked of all candidates this time. Too many Republicans in this administration. Makes you wonder if there are no Democrats, as Right Wingers claim, who could are qualified to 'protect our security'. Comey, Clapper, Alexander et al eg.

'Who will you appoint to positions of power in your cabinet? Democrats or Republicans?'

It never occured to me to ask that question in 2008. But obviously if our intention to throw out Republicans, we certainly won't accomplish it by WINNING if AFTER winning they are invited back into power.

[hobbit709]

3. Why is anyone surprised?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Hope, Change, Transparency = Politics as usual?

Wait, wait, some of you thought he was serious?

[Cleita]

9. Wish I could be shocked but I'm not. n/t

[theHandpuppet]

17. Yeah, same here

Unfortunately.

[newfie11]

19. That makes 3 of us. Nt

[840high]

56. 4 of us.

[Peregrine Took]

53. Just counting down the years til his term is over and regretting my votes all the while.

How deceptive he was campaigning back in the day. He promised us everything in his clever lawyer-like way and we fell for it

[Hawaii Hiker]

10. Probably won't happen, but these 3 nominees (who are dreadful) could be defeated

Democrats control the senate 55-45...Democrats could vote against all 3, and defeat the nominations, but that is unlikely to happen...

The only thing they get from this deal is that the Jill Pryor nomination will finally move foward...

[democratisphere]

12. Must be payback time for past or future concessions.

It's called negotiating.

[theHandpuppet]

18. When have the Republicans been known for making concessions?

I'd like to know what was put on the table before I swallow.

[Savannahmann]

13. OK, we used the Nuclear Option

So we could confirm Judges to the bench. I didn't realize we were doing that to confirm RW Lunatics to the bench. WTH is going on?

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/28/21956347-clearer-path-for-obama-regulatory-agenda-after-nuclear-option-paves-the-way?lite

[Tx4obama]

46. Your article is old. Those three DC CIRCUIT Court of Appeals nominees already have been confirmed

Your article is about a CIRCUIT court,
the OP up above is about Georgia 'district courts'


Excerpt from your link...

-snip-

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules and ended threatened filibusters of most presidential nominations, it was partly to allow Obama to install his appointees at regulatory agencies and to appoint judges who in many cases will help decide the fate of the regulations those appointees issue.

The rules change’s biggest impact could be felt at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which will end up reviewing many of the regulations enacted by Obama’s appointees, helping increase the chances that the effects of Obama’s agenda will last long after he’s left the White House.

And by using the nuclear option Democrats will add three new Obama appointees to that important court, tilting the membership there to seven active judges appointed by Democratic presidents and four appointed by Republican presidents. A year ago the balance was four judges appointed by Republican presidents to three appointed by Democratic presidents.

-snip-

[liberal_at_heart]

20. why so surprised? He has done this many times before with other appointments.

[woo me with science]

21. HOW SHOCKING AND COMPLETELY SURPRISING FROM HIM!!!!!!!!!

I trust nobody here really needs the sarcasm tag anymore.

Supporting the party at this point requires cleaning it of corruption.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4262911

He *really* makes it hard on the propagandists to do their job, doesn't he.

[Cali_Democrat]

61. SEE HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4268335

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4267264

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4267304

[SidDithers]

22. *Clunk* Another outrage widget falls to the shop floor...nt

Sid

[Tx4obama]

23. It's the two U.S. Senators from each state that sends the President a list of names to pick from...

... for the District Court seats.

If a state has two republican senators then the list will have GOPers on it.

If a state has two democratic senators then the list will have Dems on it.

If a state has one dem and one gop senator then the list will have a mixture of names.

And when there is a republican president in the oval office the same thing happens - this is nothing new - it has been like this for a very long time.

[Ikonoklast]

25. Stop using facts and stuff, the Perpetual Outrage Brigade hates facts!

Sad that so many here of all places don't know how our own government works.

[DonViejo]

26. Thank you! nt

[BlueCaliDem]

29. ^^This! ^^

[tabasco]

39. Ain't that the truth!

They are a parody of themselves.

[BenzoDia]

50. Agreed. It's rather upsetting.

[Cali_Democrat]

60. But not shocking. nt

[Savannahmann]

34. Sometimes. The President is not required to use that list.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/judicial.cfm

Pursuant to the Constitution, nominations for the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals and District Courts are made by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  Potential nominees are sometimes identified and recommended by members of Congress.  Nominees confirmed by the Senate are appointed for lifetime terms.

Democrats got rid of the filibuster for this issue, the least we should do since we have the ball is run with it. No telling how long we will have it if we just stand around with it. Democrats could. Hange the face of the Judiciary for the better with some courage.

[Tx4obama]

36. Bush ignored the list once and all hell broke out. He withdrew the nomination, and...

... picked a new nominee from the Senators' submitted list. He never tried that again.

Democrats got rid of the requirement for having 60 votes for cloture on judicial nominees, but the way the 'lists' work for District Court seats is still in place.

[woo me with science]

24. There's a new one every day.

Every day.

[Cali_Democrat]

59. See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4268335

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4267264

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4267304

[Egalitarian Thug]

27. K&R SSDD. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. This is ...

at least the second raising of this issue, with an equal amount of out-rage.

The first time it fell off when it was noted that the President nominates judicial candidates from a list provided by the state's Senators.

But, of course, give it a few days and the perpetually out-raged will recycled the issue, ignoring the explanatory facts.

SSDD every other Day.

[Baitball Blogger]

31. Following the old dog's strategy of helping the other side win strategic positions,

to make it easier for the Republicans to take him down.

[Autumn]

32. This is why we have to vote for more democrats. No matter what.

We must not let the conservatives win.

[Vincardog]

33. President Obama has the right to nominate judges that reflect his political position

[Tx4obama]

40. Supreme Court and Court of Appeals YES, but not 'red state' District Court seats

See Comments #23 and #36 regarding District Courts.

[Tx4obama]

38. But it doesn't work that way with District Court nominees. See Comments #23 and #36

[Pretzel_Warrior]

35. lolol. YAY! Something to be outraged about re: Obama!!! Randi and her stand-in's are kind of loony

pretty much anyone the the right of Bernie Sanders is going to seem conservative to them.

[WillyT]

42. Don'tcha Just Love... The Hope And The CHANGE ???

[Cali_Democrat]

58. The OP failed, Willy

Read the thread.

[Cali_Democrat]

62. See here, Willy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4268335

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4267264

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4267304

[tritsofme]

48. Sonia Sotomayor was first nominated by George HW Bush

At the recommendation of Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

There is a longstanding tradition of senators essentially choosing district judges, this is one of them.

[rhett o rick]

57. For some reason that doesnt make me feel any better. But the fact is that Pres Obama has

appoint a shit load of conservatives. The conservatives own Washington DC.

[Gothmog]

51. This is due to Blue Slip procedure

Judges have to be approved the senators of the state in question. Georgia has two republican senators and so President Obama has to select senators who are acceptable to those senators. Senator Leahy is looking at changing this procedure in the limited cases of states like Texas where our nutcase senators will not give President Obama any names.