• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans Filling Up The Federal Courts

biff_poindexter

biff_poindexter

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
907
Reaction score
323
Location
Nampa, ID
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Republicans Fill Court Seat They Denied To Obama For 6 Years

Good news for the GOP -- after denying Obama a court vacancy for six years, they were finally able to get that vacancy filled under a republican president. When some liberals wonder "how can you guys continue to support Trump?" -- this quote from the article may shed some light on why: “By appointing and confirming these strict constructionists to the courts who are in their late 40s or early 50s ... I believe we’re making a generational change in the country.”

Many of these candidates are your run of the mill pro-LGBT discrimination, anti-labor, can't go on record to say they believe Brown vs Board was correctly decided, etc -- Basically all the things most Americans want in a judge (if they happen to be a large corporation or racist). At the end of the day, Trump's presidency was never about Trump as it was about reshaping the federal courts to as much of a pre-Civil rights era as possible and rolling back as many regulations as possible -- back before that river in Ohio caught on fire (from all the pollution) and that liberal Nixon had to create the EPA. So liberals, there won't be an impeachment, Trump will serve his term and I believe he will be re-elected as long as the economy holds steady --- election have consequences --and one thing about the GOP, they have no shame, they don't mind being blatantly hypocritical, and this is why liberals will never win, they are too concerned about respecting democratic traditions -- take a page from the GOP and do whatever you have to do to get what you want and not care what others think, just ask Cocaine Mitch:


Stalled judicial nominees will be confirmed 'no matter what tactics' employed, McConnell says
 
Good. It'll save the country for another generation. We NEED origionalists in every court in America.
 
biff_poindexter said:
Republicans Fill Court Seat They Denied To Obama For 6 Years

Good news for the GOP -- after denying Obama a court vacancy for six years, they were finally able to get that vacancy filled under a republican president. When some liberals wonder "how can you guys continue to support Trump?" -- this quote from the article may shed some light on why: “By appointing and confirming these strict constructionists to the courts who are in their late 40s or early 50s ... I believe we’re making a generational change in the country.”

Many of these candidates are your run of the mill pro-LGBT discrimination, anti-labor, can't go on record to say they believe Brown vs Board was correctly decided, etc -- Basically all the things most Americans want in a judge (if they happen to be a large corporation or racist). At the end of the day, Trump's presidency was never about Trump as it was about reshaping the federal courts to as much of a pre-Civil rights era as possible and rolling back as many regulations as possible -- back before that river in Ohio caught on fire (from all the pollution) and that liberal Nixon had to create the EPA. So liberals, there won't be an impeachment, Trump will serve his term and I believe he will be re-elected as long as the economy holds steady --- election have consequences --and one thing about the GOP, they have no shame, they don't mind being blatantly hypocritical, and this is why liberals will never win, they are too concerned about respecting democratic traditions -- take a page from the GOP and do whatever you have to do to get what you want and not care what others think, just ask Cocaine Mitch:


Stalled judicial nominees will be confirmed 'no matter what tactics' employed, McConnell says
Click to expand...

It's bad news for America when the courts are made into political bodies rather than law bodies, all three branches of government have had a hand in this over many years.
 
biff_poindexter said:
Republicans Fill Court Seat They Denied To Obama For 6 Years

Good news for the GOP -- after denying Obama a court vacancy for six years, they were finally able to get that vacancy filled under a republican president. When some liberals wonder "how can you guys continue to support Trump?" -- this quote from the article may shed some light on why: “By appointing and confirming these strict constructionists to the courts who are in their late 40s or early 50s ... I believe we’re making a generational change in the country.”

Many of these candidates are your run of the mill pro-LGBT discrimination, anti-labor, can't go on record to say they believe Brown vs Board was correctly decided, etc -- Basically all the things most Americans want in a judge (if they happen to be a large corporation or racist). At the end of the day, Trump's presidency was never about Trump as it was about reshaping the federal courts to as much of a pre-Civil rights era as possible and rolling back as many regulations as possible -- back before that river in Ohio caught on fire (from all the pollution) and that liberal Nixon had to create the EPA. So liberals, there won't be an impeachment, Trump will serve his term and I believe he will be re-elected as long as the economy holds steady --- election have consequences --and one thing about the GOP, they have no shame, they don't mind being blatantly hypocritical, and this is why liberals will never win, they are too concerned about respecting democratic traditions -- take a page from the GOP and do whatever you have to do to get what you want and not care what others think, just ask Cocaine Mitch:


Stalled judicial nominees will be confirmed 'no matter what tactics' employed, McConnell says
Click to expand...

6 years? When you start off with such a blatant lie what's the point of even reading the rest of what you say?

List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama

Last Federal Judge appointed by Obama was Luis Felipe Restrepo who's confirmation date was January 11, 2016.

Last District Court Judge appointed by Obama was Brian R. Martinotti who's confirmation date was July 6, 2016.

He even appointed two SCOTUS judges. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen. Granted they're both outside of your 6 year range but since no other position opened up there until Antonin Scalia died in Feburary of 2016 its at the very best disingenuous to lay the blame for that on anyone, reps or dems or whoever else you cold possibly name. Now you could rail against Reps for not letting Obama's next pick for SCOTUS in 2016 to even get a hearing, much less stopping the appointment in a hearing, but to claim that they denied Obama's picks for 6 years is a straight up lie and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating it.
 
biff_poindexter said:
Republicans Fill Court Seat They Denied To Obama For 6 Years

Good news for the GOP -- after denying Obama a court vacancy for six years, they were finally able to get that vacancy filled under a republican president. When some liberals wonder "how can you guys continue to support Trump?" -- this quote from the article may shed some light on why: “By appointing and confirming these strict constructionists to the courts who are in their late 40s or early 50s ... I believe we’re making a generational change in the country.”

Many of these candidates are your run of the mill pro-LGBT discrimination, anti-labor, can't go on record to say they believe Brown vs Board was correctly decided, etc -- Basically all the things most Americans want in a judge (if they happen to be a large corporation or racist). At the end of the day, Trump's presidency was never about Trump as it was about reshaping the federal courts to as much of a pre-Civil rights era as possible and rolling back as many regulations as possible -- back before that river in Ohio caught on fire (from all the pollution) and that liberal Nixon had to create the EPA. So liberals, there won't be an impeachment, Trump will serve his term and I believe he will be re-elected as long as the economy holds steady --- election have consequences --and one thing about the GOP, they have no shame, they don't mind being blatantly hypocritical, and this is why liberals will never win, they are too concerned about respecting democratic traditions -- take a page from the GOP and do whatever you have to do to get what you want and not care what others think, just ask Cocaine Mitch:


Stalled judicial nominees will be confirmed 'no matter what tactics' employed, McConnell says
Click to expand...

Can you properly define what either "originalist" or "strict constructionist" mean? (They're not the same thing.)

If you can, can you explain exactly why it wouldn't be proper for a judge to approach the law this way?
 
Kal'Stang said:
6 years? When you start off with such a blatant lie what's the point of even reading the rest of what you say?
Click to expand...

From the article that you clearly didn't read because your partisan hackery prevents you from acknowledging facts:

By January 2016, six years after the seat became empty, Obama nominated Donald Schott — one of the eight people chosen by the state panel. Baldwin gave the green light for him to get a hearing by turning in her blue slip, and reluctantly, Johnson did too. Schott got his hearing in June 2016. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked action on Obama’s court picks for the rest of the year, and Schott’s nomination expired. -- In other words, Obama made multiple attempts to nominate someone for that seat and was denied repeatedly for 6 years by the GOP, the same ones whining about Democrats slowing up the process now-- so once again, the nomination expires and the nominee ends up withdrawing their nomination -- which is what a previous Obama nominee did before he nominated Schott. What do republicans think about this blue slip process now that they relied on so heavily?? -- again from the article that you didn't read:

And the same Republicans who used blue slips to deny Obama the seat have now ignored the tradition of blue slips to help Trump fill it.


And as for Obama and Supreme Court nominees, I only have two words, Merrick Garland.
 
biff_poindexter said:
From the article that you clearly didn't read because your partisan hackery prevents you from acknowledging facts:

By January 2016, six years after the seat became empty, Obama nominated Donald Schott — one of the eight people chosen by the state panel. Baldwin gave the green light for him to get a hearing by turning in her blue slip, and reluctantly, Johnson did too. Schott got his hearing in June 2016. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked action on Obama’s court picks for the rest of the year, and Schott’s nomination expired. -- In other words, Obama made multiple attempts to nominate someone for that seat and was denied repeatedly for 6 years by the GOP, the same ones whining about Democrats slowing up the process now-- so once again, the nomination expires and the nominee ends up withdrawing their nomination -- which is what a previous Obama nominee did before he nominated Schott. What do republicans think about this blue slip process now that they relied on so heavily?? -- again from the article that you didn't read:

And the same Republicans who used blue slips to deny Obama the seat have now ignored the tradition of blue slips to help Trump fill it.


And as for Obama and Supreme Court nominees, I only have two words, Merrick Garland.
Click to expand...

From your article:

The commission had eight candidates to recommend by January 2015, but couldn’t reach a consensus. The process stalled out in May, so Baldwin submitted all of their names to the White House to let the administration pick someone. Johnson fumed that Baldwin’s move was “partisan” and said the nomination process should start all over.
Click to expand...

Why didn't Obama pick anyone between May 2015 and January 2016? Also what took Obama so long to appoint someone to those two districts between 2012 and 2014? Answer two those two questions: Because politicians, including Obama and those Senators, often have more than just judge appointments to take care of. Often things that are far more important.

Now, I'm not saying what was done was right, but neither is it necessarily wrong. Both sides often do stuff like this, sometimes they have good reasons, sometimes they have partisan reasons. In the end, that's our system for ya. :shrug: If you disagree with it then petition the government for change. Get enough people behind you and you may even get some change enacted. But don't act like this is a one sided thing.

As for your OP, maybe you should have been more specific in your opening post. For my part, yes, I should have read the links.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Both sides often do stuff like this, sometimes they have good reasons, sometimes they have partisan reasons. In the end, that's our system for ya.
Click to expand...

Republicans have been abrogating centuries old Congressional traditions, and norms, for decades.

It's the opposite of 'the system'.
 
late said:
Republicans have been abrogating centuries old Congressional traditions, and norms, for decades.

It's the opposite of 'the system'.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you wish to think that this is only the Republican's doing then by all means go for it. I might be able to lead you to clear spring water, but I can't make you drink it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Now, I'm not saying what was done was right, but neither is it necessarily wrong. Both sides often do stuff like this,
Click to expand...

The classical "both sides do it" surrender-- when before you were so quick to call someone a liar -- and no, both sides don't do it.

Why didn't Obama pick someone in 2016? Did that question actually come off your keyboard? Obama picked a Supreme Court nominee in 2016, we see how that worked out. Oh in case you try to say "Garland was a radical leftist" -- just know that before Obama nominated Garland, GOP senators were on record about who they felt Obama should pick -- Senators like Orin Hatch who said "(Obama) could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," Hatch said in Newsmax, adding later, "He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election." -- So when Obama called his bluff and nominated him, Hatch had to change his tune and finally admit he just wants the next president to pick the judge because the Constitution totally says, you can only do president stuff for 3 years, but not your last year and stuff.

So no, both sides don't do it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hey, if you wish to think that this is only the Republican's doing then by all means go for it. I might be able to lead you to clear spring water, but I can't make you drink it.
Click to expand...

Mile Lofgren is a Republican, a historian, and worked as a staffer in Congress for years.

He wrote a book about what he saw
https://www.amazon.com/Party-Over-R...ncoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=NWETCMJGP4VA8BCCXW8

He's not the only one, assuming you have an interest in learning.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-truth-about-american-politics
 
Dan abrams said it best>
Left wing judges tend to rule based on desired result.
Yep. We've seen that many times over.
Like the liberal judges who ruled that Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional.
LAUGHABLE.
Now I don't agrer with that travel ban but it's well withing the President's scope of authority to do it.
We don't want national security decided by one lw loon in San Francisco.
 
KLATTU said:
Dan abrams said it best>
Left wing judges tend to rule based on desired result.
Yep. We've seen that many times over.
Like the liberal judges who ruled that Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional.
LAUGHABLE.
Now I don't agrer with that travel ban but it's well withing the President's scope of authority to do it.
We don't want national security decided by one lw loon in San Francisco.
Click to expand...

Only problem being, of course, is that there is no credible evidence to back up that assertion.

Unless, of course, one finds Fantasy Land more comfy than reality.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Only problem being, of course, is that there is no credible evidence to back up that assertion.

Unless, of course, one finds Fantasy Land more comfy than reality.
Click to expand...

Right.
No evidence. None. { Guffaw}

And the NY Times, Wapo,Abc ,NBC,and CBS aren't de facto arms of the DNC.

LAFF
 
KLATTU said:
Right.
No evidence. None. { Guffaw}

And the NY Times, Wapo,Abc ,NBC,and CBS aren't de facto arms of the DNC.

LAFF
Click to expand...

It's OK that you can't back up the claim I addressed. Sure looks like Fantasy Land actually is really comfy.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
It's bad news for America when the courts are made into political bodies rather than law bodies, all three branches of government have had a hand in this over many years.
Click to expand...

You just posted something sensible. Color me shocked. :) I'm gonna mark this day on my calendar. :D
 
If Democrats don't take back one of the houses this November then impeaching Obama and Clinton appointees will be on the menu.
 
biff_poindexter said:
Republicans Fill Court Seat They Denied To Obama For 6 Years

Good news for the GOP -- after denying Obama a court vacancy for six years, they were finally able to get that vacancy filled under a republican president. When some liberals wonder "how can you guys continue to support Trump?" -- this quote from the article may shed some light on why: “By appointing and confirming these strict constructionists to the courts who are in their late 40s or early 50s ... I believe we’re making a generational change in the country.”

Many of these candidates are your run of the mill pro-LGBT discrimination, anti-labor, can't go on record to say they believe Brown vs Board was correctly decided, etc -- Basically all the things most Americans want in a judge (if they happen to be a large corporation or racist). At the end of the day, Trump's presidency was never about Trump as it was about reshaping the federal courts to as much of a pre-Civil rights era as possible and rolling back as many regulations as possible -- back before that river in Ohio caught on fire (from all the pollution) and that liberal Nixon had to create the EPA. So liberals, there won't be an impeachment, Trump will serve his term and I believe he will be re-elected as long as the economy holds steady --- election have consequences --and one thing about the GOP, they have no shame, they don't mind being blatantly hypocritical, and this is why liberals will never win, they are too concerned about respecting democratic traditions -- take a page from the GOP and do whatever you have to do to get what you want and not care what others think, just ask Cocaine Mitch:


Stalled judicial nominees will be confirmed 'no matter what tactics' employed, McConnell says
Click to expand...
Obama 329 > Trump 35.

Please make a note of it.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama
 
Cardinal said:
If Democrats don't take back one of the houses this November then impeaching Obama and Clinton appointees will be on the menu.
Click to expand...

If D's dont take at least one chamber all of the top D's are going to be set on an ice flow.....they have already been warned.
 
KLATTU said:
Dan abrams said it best>
Left wing judges tend to rule based on desired result.
Yep. We've seen that many times over.
Like the liberal judges who ruled that Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional.
LAUGHABLE.
Now I don't agrer with that travel ban but it's well withing the President's scope of authority to do it.
We don't want national security decided by one lw loon in San Francisco.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The GOP has controlled the supreme court continuously since 1969. If you don't approve of the supreme court it's republican jurisprudence about which you don't approve.

Blaming us for what Republicans did is not nice.
 
Harshaw said:
Can you properly define what either "originalist" or "strict constructionist" mean? (They're not the same thing.)

If you can, can you explain exactly why it wouldn't be proper for a judge to approach the law this way?
Click to expand...

An originalist would be a supporter of the original document: the failed articles of confederation--not the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom