Tue Dec 29, 2015, 07:20 AM
Human101948 (3,457 posts)
Republicans are sabotaging our government at home and overseas...
Remember when the Republicans were screaming about this during the Bush debacle?
Senate Republicans Are Blocking Obama's Judges at a Nearly Unprecedented Rate The Senate has confirmed just nine judges nominated by President Obama so far this year. It's the slowest pace of confirmations in more than half a century, on track to match the 11 confirmations in 1960. "It's still like pulling teeth to move nominations," says a senior Democratic Senate aide. "They're being held by a number of different Republican senators for every reason under the sun. None of which have anything to do with the actual qualifications of the nominees." With Republicans in charge of both branches of Congress, odds are slim that Obama will sign major domestic legislation during the last two years of his presidency. Even keeping the government's lights on and selecting a new House speaker have required protracted fights in this dysfunctional Congress. But judges are still one area where a hamstrung president can leave a mark, as district and circuit court judges who win confirmation receive a lifetime appointment. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/senate-republicans-block-obama-judge-nominations America’s Empty Embassies By WALTER F. MONDALE DEC. 29, 2015 ...American diplomats have made remarkable progress across a number of fronts, from climate change to checking Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Such success depends on making common cause with our allies, an effort led by America’s ambassadors. And yet, thanks to Senate politics, dozens of ambassadorial nominations have been delayed unnecessarily. At one point in 2014, nearly a quarter of the world’s countries lacked an American ambassador, and even today, despite some efforts to approve candidates, a dozen nominations have not received congressional action — including nominees to represent the United States in strategically vital countries like Mexico, Norway and Sweden. Some of these are still early in the nomination process, but several have received overwhelming bipartisan support in committee, only to see their candidacy halted on the Senate floor. -more- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/opinion/americas-empty-embassies.html?emc=edit_th_20151229&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=70251688&_r=0
|
23 replies, 3611 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Human101948 | Dec 2015 | OP |
Proserpina | Dec 2015 | #1 | |
wolfie001 | Dec 2015 | #3 | |
Proserpina | Dec 2015 | #4 | |
Scuba | Dec 2015 | #7 | |
wolfie001 | Dec 2015 | #10 | |
Scuba | Dec 2015 | #11 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Dec 2015 | #12 | |
wolfie001 | Dec 2015 | #14 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Dec 2015 | #20 | |
Scuba | Dec 2015 | #15 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Dec 2015 | #18 | |
Scuba | Dec 2015 | #19 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Dec 2015 | #21 | |
Scuba | Dec 2015 | #22 | |
wolfie001 | Dec 2015 | #13 | |
pampango | Dec 2015 | #6 | |
Phil1934 | Dec 2015 | #2 | |
Dustlawyer | Dec 2015 | #5 | |
Human101948 | Dec 2015 | #8 | |
Dustlawyer | Dec 2015 | #9 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Dec 2015 | #17 | |
rurallib | Dec 2015 | #16 | |
mountain grammy | Dec 2015 | #23 |
Response to Human101948 (Original post)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 08:02 AM
Proserpina (2,352 posts)
1. Congress is dysfunctional, and has been for decades
It can't pass a budget, fill vacancies, or otherwise take care of the nation's legislative needs in a timely and businesslike manner, but it can do any number of outlandish stunts and waste millions of manhours on stuff that people neither need nor want from them: inviting foreign heads of state to lecture them, give massive tax breaks to the 1%, cut the legs out from under the impoverished, etc.
It's a lack of party discipline, IMO. And Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are suspects 1 and 2. |
Response to Proserpina (Reply #1)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 08:09 AM
wolfie001 (1,649 posts)
3. 'And Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are suspects 1 and 2'.........
.......seriously?......
|
Response to wolfie001 (Reply #3)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 08:24 AM
Proserpina (2,352 posts)
4. Good leadership is recognized by the legacy it leaves behind
Response to wolfie001 (Reply #3)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 08:39 AM
Scuba (53,475 posts)
7. What did they get done in 2009?
Response to Scuba (Reply #7)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:00 AM
wolfie001 (1,649 posts)
10. Didn't proffer up enough unicorns, obviously
Good thing Pelosi has/had reasonable humans such as Looney Goobert, Michelle (those eyes, eeek) Bachman and Steve (cantaloupes) King to strike deals with. Also, McTurtle from Kentucky is very willing to do....exactly nothing. But, please, let's blame the Dems. Should help with the next election's turnout.
|
Response to wolfie001 (Reply #10)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:01 AM
Scuba (53,475 posts)
11. Securing voting rights would have been a nice unicorn.
I guess they were too busy passing Mitt Romney's healthcare plan.
|
Response to Scuba (Reply #11)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:05 AM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
12. Securing the Mitt Romney healthcare plan to was/is light years ahead of what we had ...
and is responsible for (at least one) DUer being with us today.
I don't consider that a small thing. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #12)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:11 AM
wolfie001 (1,649 posts)
14. Yes, you're right!
Many underserved (or not served at all) have benefited from the ACA! Keep improving this plan until it helps all Americans!
|
Response to wolfie001 (Reply #14)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:47 AM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
20. Amazingly, a segment of DU is utterly incapable of accepting anything less than perfection ...
and would rather have nothing ... so long as they, personally, are not negatively affected by their purity.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #12)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:19 AM
Scuba (53,475 posts)
15. Better than not, agreed. But a public option would have been world's better.
Response to Scuba (Reply #15)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:43 AM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
18. Universal coverage would have been better still than a public option; but, ...
you know ... that whole divided government thing.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #18)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:45 AM
Scuba (53,475 posts)
19. In 2009 Dems controlled the White House, House and Senate yet Obama didn't even try.
Response to Scuba (Reply #19)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 10:01 AM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
21. That's because President Obama can count. eom.
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #21)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 10:03 AM
Scuba (53,475 posts)
22. He can speak to, when he feels like it ...
![]() |
Response to Scuba (Reply #11)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:08 AM
wolfie001 (1,649 posts)
13. Whack-a-mole politics
Better to secure the Supreme Court nominations (win the WH next year). That would go a long way to solving the "Voting Crisis", IMO.
|
Response to Proserpina (Reply #1)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 08:33 AM
pampango (24,692 posts)
6. "And Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are suspects 1 and 2." Certainly, McConnell and Boehner
are not to blame. Nor the tea party idiots that screws things up.
![]() |
Response to Human101948 (Original post)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 08:07 AM
Phil1934 (49 posts)
2. they are not the ones
who voted 60 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act
|
Response to Human101948 (Original post)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 08:28 AM
Dustlawyer (10,400 posts)
5. I would rather Bernie nominate them anyway!
Obama's picks have all come from big banking and insurance defense firms. Individuals don't stand a chance with his appointees. The Republicans would normally not have a problem with these appointees, except of course it's Obama doing the appointing.
You will not see a federal judge appointed who comes from a Trial Lawyer background. No plaintiff judges allowed. |
Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #5)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 08:39 AM
Human101948 (3,457 posts)
8. Will Republicans be less recalcitrant with Bernie's nominees?
While you may be correct about the quality of Obama's picks, I can't see Republicans confirming nominees that are guaranteed to torpedo their benefactors. Unless, of course, all our fantasies come true with a Democratic sweep of the Senate and House.
|
Response to Human101948 (Reply #8)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 08:58 AM
Dustlawyer (10,400 posts)
9. I am sure they will. I would be hopeful that Bernie will direct us and our people power to
pressure the other politicians to move on the nominees, but yes they will oppose any and all. We have a lot of work to do to put the fear of loss in these established politicians.
|
Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #5)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:25 AM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
17. I think you (will) see what you want to see ...
regardless of what has really occurred.
Obama's picks have all come from big banking and insurance defense firms.
This is a statement, wholly unsupportable, by fact. |
Response to Human101948 (Original post)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 09:21 AM
rurallib (60,829 posts)
16. much of this can be laid at the feet of Chuck Grassley
especially the judiciary where he refuses to move a damn thing now that he is head of that committee.
At one point he was also holding 20+ state department nominees waiting for Clinton to respond to some questions he had. The Paris attacks embarrassed him into releasing many of those holds. Iowa will most likely elect him once more because we seldom turn out a republican no matter how bad. |
Response to rurallib (Reply #16)
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 10:03 AM
mountain grammy (25,517 posts)
23. That one Senator has this much power over appointments is disgusting..
he's not even my senator, nor could he get elected in many parts of the country. Yet one senator is allowed to stop the workings of a democratically elected president? We need to get over the idea of democracy.
|