Liberal groups urge lawmakers to reje...

Liberal groups urge lawmakers to reject Obama judge pick

There are 18 comments on the Times Herald story from Feb 20, 2014, titled Liberal groups urge lawmakers to reject Obama judge pick. In it, Times Herald reports that:

President Obama speaks during a joint press conference with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper following their trilateral North American Leaders summit at the Palacio de Gobierno in Toluca, Mexico, on February 19, 2014.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Times Herald.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Feb 20, 2014
Why cut a deal with the GOPasaurs when the Dems still control the Senate?
Dump these two nominees.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Feb 20, 2014
At least try for moderates.
El oh El

Webster, MA

#3 Feb 20, 2014
Those obstructionist thugs in the House of... wait, say what?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Feb 20, 2014
El oh El wrote:
Those obstructionist thugs in the House of... wait, say what?
The Democrats don't control the House. Don't you know ANYTHING ???!!!
foster

Ashburn, VA

#5 Feb 21, 2014
horrible idea to confirm either to the bench.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#6 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Democrats don't control the House. Don't you know ANYTHING ???!!!
Presidential appointments are consented to by the Senate.

But then, YOU already know that.

Some, apparently, do not.

I hope that this President fills every vacant Federal Bench seat.

I'd also like to see the SCotUS seats increased to 13, and a couple of the Circuits split into two, with one Justice assigned to oversee each.

The Right to a Speedy Trial could only be enhanced.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Feb 21, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Presidential appointments are consented to by the Senate.
But then, YOU already know that.
Some, apparently, do not.
I hope that this President fills every vacant Federal Bench seat.
I'd also like to see the SCotUS seats increased to 13, and a couple of the Circuits split into two, with one Justice assigned to oversee each.
The Right to a Speedy Trial could only be enhanced.
FDR already tried that and got bitchslapped by Congress for it.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Feb 21, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Presidential appointments are consented to by the Senate.
But then, YOU already know that.
Some, apparently, do not.
I hope that this President fills every vacant Federal Bench seat.
I'd also like to see the SCotUS seats increased to 13, and a couple of the Circuits split into two, with one Justice assigned to oversee each.
The Right to a Speedy Trial could only be enhanced.
Back to FDR's old socialist court-packing scheme, huh ? Even the Democrats who held an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress at the time said "NO !" to that corrupt scheme.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#9 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to FDR's old socialist court-packing scheme, huh ? Even the Democrats who held an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress at the time said "NO !" to that corrupt scheme.
I don't think of it as "court packing".

That's a pejorative innuendo about the motivations of people you don't actually know.

Remember this term?

CALUMNY

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Feb 21, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
FDR already tried that and got bitchslapped by Congress for it.
Raising the number of Justices, or fulfilling his Administrative duty to keep Federal offices filled?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Feb 21, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think of it as "court packing".
That's a pejorative innuendo about the motivations of people you don't actually know.
Remember this term?
CALUMNY
Historians call it the "court packing scheme".

Even the official website of the U.S. Senate calls it the "court packing plan".

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history...

Do you also believe that Nixon was just "listening in out of curiosity" ?

And World War II was just "the testing of the effectiveness of various explosives in various parts of the world".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Historians call it the "court packing scheme".
Even the official website of the U.S. Senate calls it the "court packing plan".
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history...
Do you also believe that Nixon was just "listening in out of curiosity" ?
And World War II was just "the testing of the effectiveness of various explosives in various parts of the world".
I'd call it "court packing" if the nominees were blatantly partisan.

The number of Justices has been raised before, and needs to be again. New Circuits have been added before and need to be again. The workload is just too great.

The seats on the other benches have been vacant for too long. Some for multiple Presidencies.

There is nothing in the Constitution limiting Presidential nominations for these vital positions.

You should like that.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#13 Feb 22, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd call it "court packing" if the nominees were blatantly partisan.
The number of Justices has been raised before, and needs to be again. New Circuits have been added before and need to be again. The workload is just too great.
The seats on the other benches have been vacant for too long. Some for multiple Presidencies.
There is nothing in the Constitution limiting Presidential nominations for these vital positions.
You should like that.
Congress decides how many justices sit on SCOTUS and how many judicial circuits there are, how many federal judges there are, etc. The POTUS can't arbitrarily change those things. The number of justices on SCOTUS now is fine (although I think being a democrat or a liberal should be an immediate disqualification from sitting on the bench).

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Feb 22, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd call it "court packing" if the nominees were blatantly partisan.
The number of Justices has been raised before, and needs to be again. New Circuits have been added before and need to be again. The workload is just too great.
The seats on the other benches have been vacant for too long. Some for multiple Presidencies.
There is nothing in the Constitution limiting Presidential nominations for these vital positions.
You should like that.
Your point about the number of circuit courts and justices is valid. Historically there was one SCOTUS justice for each circuit court.

Considering the length of time it takes for cases to be resolved- often 3-5 years, I agree we should increase the number of circuit appeals courts to about 20, with 20 justices on the SCOTUS.

But with the hyper-partisan atmosphere in DC, there is no way it would ever fly because one party would get an advantage over the other.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Feb 22, 2014
A better option might be to set specific time lines for cases to be resolved.

3 months for the district court to try the case and issue a ruling.
3 months for the appeals court to REVIEW the lower court ruling for errors and issue their own ruling.
3 months for the SCOTUS to REVIEW the appeals court ruling for errors and issue their own ruling.

Every case would be resolved in 9 months from the date the case is filed in district court.

Part of the problem is the appeals court basically re-tries every case instead of just reviewing the district court ruling for errors in process as they are supposed to do. Then the SCOTUS ends up doing essentially the same thing.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16 Feb 22, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point about the number of circuit courts and justices is valid. Historically there was one SCOTUS justice for each circuit court.
Considering the length of time it takes for cases to be resolved- often 3-5 years, I agree we should increase the number of circuit appeals courts to about 20, with 20 justices on the SCOTUS.
But with the hyper-partisan atmosphere in DC, there is no way it would ever fly because one party would get an advantage over the other.
Even without splitting Circuits, a jump from 9 to 13 Justices seems more immediately practical, considering we already have 12 geographic Circuits and the Federal Circuit. It would bring the workload to 1 Justice per existing area of oversight.

13 rather than any even number limits partisan impasse.

A 5-4 split has always seemed pretty meagre to me in light of the impact SCotUS Decisions have. I fail to see how a more difficult 7-6 majority could favor one party over another.

An increase from 9 to 13 is easy. Pick two bastards from each side of the aisle. lol.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Feb 23, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Even without splitting Circuits, a jump from 9 to 13 Justices seems more immediately practical, considering we already have 12 geographic Circuits and the Federal Circuit. It would bring the workload to 1 Justice per existing area of oversight.
13 rather than any even number limits partisan impasse.
A 5-4 split has always seemed pretty meagre to me in light of the impact SCotUS Decisions have. I fail to see how a more difficult 7-6 majority could favor one party over another.
An increase from 9 to 13 is easy. Pick two bastards from each side of the aisle. lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =pwC18BTuxaIXX
Since the SCOTUS justices no longer "ride circuit", have 9 or 13 or 30 justices won't affect their workload in the least.

And since the President nominates the justices for the SCOTUS, whichever party happens to control the White House would get to nominate all the newly created justices.

In our current hyper-partisan atmosphere, I just don't see that ever happening.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Feb 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the SCOTUS justices no longer "ride circuit", have 9 or 13 or 30 justices won't affect their workload in the least.
And since the President nominates the justices for the SCOTUS, whichever party happens to control the White House would get to nominate all the newly created justices.
In our current hyper-partisan atmosphere, I just don't see that ever happening.
Actually, SCotUS Justices DO "ride circuit" every year, presiding en banc, and holding consultative supervisory meetings with the Appeals Judges of each Circuit. They are responsible for all of their operations, down to the meanest janitor and staple bender in the Federal Courthouses.

It's just one of many things not generally known about the functions of the Justices.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Latest: DeVos says she'll take $1 as educat... 23 min Flavor3109 10
News Borders' controversial bill looks dead-on-filing 35 min Mistress2412 52
man looking soft bottom or nice women in jeddah... (Sep '09) 2 hr jeddah_bottom69 750
News Obama Commutes Chelsea Manning's Sentence 3 hr TerriB1 1
What kind of guys like male to female trannies? (Jul '08) 17 hr TerriB1 173
Massage in Dammam 21 hr Lolo999 4
Any bottom in Madinah (Jul '13) Mon rajuboth 102
More from around the web