https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39554.html

"Have you heard of Trump Derangement Syndrome, popularly known as TDS? Wikipedia defines it as an irrational response to President Trump’s statements or actions “with little regard to Trump’s actual position or action taken.” Senate Democrats’ opposition to Trump’s judicial nominees suggests that TDS might not only be real but also contagious.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., joined the Judiciary Committee in 1979 and chaired the panel for 10 years. He speaks often on the Senate floor about the confirmation process and has offered specific standards for measuring how well it works. On March 6, 2012, for example, then-Chairman Leahy described “the long tradition of deference on District Court nominees to the home-state senators.” A week later, he emphasized that nominees to the court “have always been considered with deference to the home-state senators.”


Since 1917, home-state senators have indeed played an important role in the process of appointing U.S. District Court judges. That role, and the tradition Leahy described, explain why only 4 percent of nominees confirmed to the court between 1917 and 2016 received even a single negative Senate vote.

Then Donald Trump was elected president, and TDS symptoms began to appear. In just two years, his 53 District Court appointees received four times as many negative confirmation votes as the 2,459 nominees confirmed in the previous century combined. Take a moment and read that last sentence again.

What happened to deference to home-state senators? What happened to the long tradition that Leahy described?..."

Quote:In July 2012, when Barack Obama was president, left-wing groups such as the Alliance for Justice declared a “vacancy crisis in the federal courts.” Today, with vacancies 80 percent higher, those groups are actually urging even stronger opposition to Trump’s nominees.

This I find interesting. Why did Obama not stack the deck? Was this more legacy crap where he held off and left so many vacancies so that Hillary could appoint a ton of new judges as the first female president?

(02-23-2019 04:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  McConnell didn’t appoint his justices

? You care to enlighten us?

(02-23-2019 04:42 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

Quote:In July 2012, when Barack Obama was president, left-wing groups such as the Alliance for Justice declared a “vacancy crisis in the federal courts.” Today, with vacancies 80 percent higher, those groups are actually urging even stronger opposition to Trump’s nominees.

This I find interesting. Why did Obama not stack the deck? Was this more legacy crap where he held off and left so many vacancies so that Hillary could appoint a ton of new judges as the first female president?

Basically, what happened is that Obama tried, but the Republican Senate stopped him. Instead of the usual process of just voting to approve if the home state senators raised no objections to a judicial candidate, the Republicans started insisting on full formal hearings for each appointee. This essentially stone walled Obama’s nominees through converting each confirmation process from a few hours to several months. Once a Republican president started appointing right leaning judges, the Republicans stopped insisting on formal hearings. The Democrats are voting against the appointments in protest.

(02-24-2019 06:55 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 04:42 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

Quote:In July 2012, when Barack Obama was president, left-wing groups such as the Alliance for Justice declared a “vacancy crisis in the federal courts.” Today, with vacancies 80 percent higher, those groups are actually urging even stronger opposition to Trump’s nominees.

This I find interesting. Why did Obama not stack the deck? Was this more legacy crap where he held off and left so many vacancies so that Hillary could appoint a ton of new judges as the first female president?

Basically, what happened is that Obama tried, but the Republican Senate stopped him. Instead of the usual process of just voting to approve if the home state senators raised no objections to a judicial candidate, the Republicans started insisting on full formal hearings for each appointee. This essentially stone walled Obama’s nominees through converting each confirmation process from a few hours to several months. Once a Republican president started appointing right leaning judges, the Republicans stopped insisting on formal hearings. The Democrats are voting against the appointments in protest.

Democrats are doing more than just voting. They are basically now simply returning the favor, as much as they can. They don't have the majority in the senate, but there are certain things they can do procedurally to delay confirmation of appointments. They can tag a nominee and place certain procedural holds on confirmation.

(02-24-2019 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 06:55 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 04:42 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

Quote:In July 2012, when Barack Obama was president, left-wing groups such as the Alliance for Justice declared a “vacancy crisis in the federal courts.” Today, with vacancies 80 percent higher, those groups are actually urging even stronger opposition to Trump’s nominees.

This I find interesting. Why did Obama not stack the deck? Was this more legacy crap where he held off and left so many vacancies so that Hillary could appoint a ton of new judges as the first female president?

Basically, what happened is that Obama tried, but the Republican Senate stopped him. Instead of the usual process of just voting to approve if the home state senators raised no objections to a judicial candidate, the Republicans started insisting on full formal hearings for each appointee. This essentially stone walled Obama’s nominees through converting each confirmation process from a few hours to several months. Once a Republican president started appointing right leaning judges, the Republicans stopped insisting on formal hearings. The Democrats are voting against the appointments in protest.

Democrats are doing more than just voting. They are basically now simply returning the favor, as much as they can. They don't have the majority in the senate, but there are certain things they can do procedurally to delay confirmation of appointments. They can tag a nominee and place certain procedural holds on confirmation.

They've delayed things on a scale never seen before or imagined before. You're brainwashed if you think its some sort of moral protest. Its simply an effort to slow the appointment of judges and staff.

(02-24-2019 09:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 06:55 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 04:42 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

Quote:In July 2012, when Barack Obama was president, left-wing groups such as the Alliance for Justice declared a “vacancy crisis in the federal courts.” Today, with vacancies 80 percent higher, those groups are actually urging even stronger opposition to Trump’s nominees.

This I find interesting. Why did Obama not stack the deck? Was this more legacy crap where he held off and left so many vacancies so that Hillary could appoint a ton of new judges as the first female president?

Basically, what happened is that Obama tried, but the Republican Senate stopped him. Instead of the usual process of just voting to approve if the home state senators raised no objections to a judicial candidate, the Republicans started insisting on full formal hearings for each appointee. This essentially stone walled Obama’s nominees through converting each confirmation process from a few hours to several months. Once a Republican president started appointing right leaning judges, the Republicans stopped insisting on formal hearings. The Democrats are voting against the appointments in protest.

Democrats are doing more than just voting. They are basically now simply returning the favor, as much as they can. They don't have the majority in the senate, but there are certain things they can do procedurally to delay confirmation of appointments. They can tag a nominee and place certain procedural holds on confirmation.

They've delayed things on a scale never seen before or imagined before. You're brainwashed if you think its some sort of moral protest. Its simply an effort to slow the appointment of judges and staff.

This. The democrats have made courts the strongest branch of government by appointing activists judges. They will do all they can to hang on to the judicial branch.