Democrats finally broke the filibuster on judicial nominees, and what does this President do? . . .

[markpkessinger]

. . . Why, he outsources the selection of five judicial vacancies on the federal bench in Georgia to Republicans, of course, like any other President would do! Oh, wait . . .

FFS! God forbid this President should actually use an advantage Congressional Democrats handed to him!

[font size=4]Democratic Members Of Congress Slam Obama For Massive Cave To Republicans On Judges[/font]

BY IAN MILLHISER JANUARY 6, 2014 AT 3:53 PM

Last November, Senate Democrats invoked a procedural maneuver that allowed them to confirm judicial nominees by a simple majority vote, thus cutting off the GOP’s ability to maintain control over a key federal appeals court by simply refusing to permit anyone to be confirmed. So it’s a bit odd that, just over a month after Senate Republicans effectively lost their ability to veto nominees from the minority. President Obama decided to outsource selecting nominees to most of the open judicial seats in Georgia to two Republican senators.

Presently, five judicial vacancies need to be filled in Georgia. Yet, 2013 wound down, Obama agreed to a deal that would place most of these seats in Republican hands. As we explained in September when this deal was under consideration,

Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) would agree to stop blocking attorney Jill Pryor’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — a nomination that they have effectively held up for well over 1000 days. In return, Obama would nominate a George H.W. Bush-appointed judge — Chief Judge Julie Carnes of the Northern District of Georgia — to the other open seat on the Eleventh Circuit, creating a fourth vacancy on this federal trial court. Chambliss and Isakson would then be allowed to select three of the four attorneys named to these seats.

Now that Obama has formally nominated this Republican slate of judges, his usual allies in Georgia’s congressional delegation are not happy. Shortly after the nominees were announced, civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) warned that these nominees “do not adequately reflect the diversity of the northern district and that the selection process lacked meaningful community input,” and that “several nominees include persons who have advocated in favor of Georgia’s voter ID laws and for including the Confederate Battle Emblem as part of the Georgia State Flag.” He was joined in his complaint about these nominees by several of his fellow civil rights leaders, as well as Reps. Hank Johnson (D-GA) and David Scott (D-GA).

< . . . . >

[Boomerproud]

1. Why does he continue to do things like this?

[markpkessinger]

2. I wish I knew n/t

[stevenleser]

17. Google blue slip process. It's still a part of how the senate does business. nt

[sabrina 1]

40. So what you're saying is we may as well vote for Republicans? If appointing Republicans is the 'way

the Senate does business, then there is no point in electing Democrats. So far, how many Republicans has this president restored to powerful positions in our Government AFTER WE THREW THEM OUT?

Did the Senate, which Dems control, force him to appoint all those Republicans? Explain this please because there is an election coming up and people don't want to waste their time and money and effor 'electing democrats' if they are so completely ineffective, according to you.

[Tx4obama]

48. See Comment #47 regarding 'District Court' nominees

[sabrina 1]

54. See 'Leahy has the power to stop this'. And he surely will.

Ever hear of fighting for what you want? Especially when you have the tools to do it with?

[Tx4obama]

57. Seems like some folks do not understand how the process of nominating 'District Court' nominees...

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2014, 02:30 AM - Edit history (1)

... works - in the past and presently.

We just need some patience and some time to distribute information

I'm trying. See Comment #47 and add to it what ever I forgot to add (if you'd like)

[LiberalArkie]

26. Does the NSA have something on Obama?

[KittyWampus]

3. As I posted in another thread someone started trying to trash Obama for this>>>

This is is very ugly political sausage making.

Republicans gave a few other judicial nominations the green light for this.

Ultimately, I think there's a sizable contingent on DU that don't understand politics and/or probably shouldn't be following them despite their efforts to appear informed.

[markpkessinger]

4. With the judicial filibuster now broken . . .

. . . The President didn't need a "green light" on other nominations!

[former9thward]

6. Senatorial "holds" remain and were not repealed by the filibuster change.

A Senator can "hold" a nominee from his home state for any reason. That is why there was this compromise.

[Progressive dog]

15. Thanks, the Boston Globe says you are right

and that Sen. Leahy might change this if it is abused. I thought it already was being abused.

[former9thward]

19. Senator Leahy has been saying that for a long time.

But actually I don't think it is up to him. I think the full Senate would have to vote to end the practice.

[Tx4obama]

64. It is at the 'Senate Judiciary Committee' level of the process when some Senators refuse to ...

... refuse to turn in a 'blue slip' - that is before the nominee has had a Committee vote (not at the 'full Senate' phase)

And it is the Chairman of the 'committee' that sets the 'committee rules'.

In this case it would be Senator/Chairman Leahy.

[SidDithers]

23. You do know that Georgia has 2 Republican Senators, don't you?...nt

Sid

[Tx4obama]

49. See Comment #47 regarding 'District Court' nominees

[pscot]

10. John Lewis just doesn't understand politics?

[Doctor_J]

13. Or chess. Remember this is all part of the president's grand plan

See, he lets the Repukes appoint far right judges, and that proves to the voters how out of touch they are, so we win!! You and John Lewis just are racists who didn't get your ponies.

[KittyWampus]

58. he is completely entitled to voice his displeasure. It's understandable. Doesn't change reality.

[ProSense]

69. Exactly. n/t

[pscot]

84. It sure doesn't

A Democratic president pushed John Lewis aside to please Saxby Chambliss and those Republican judges now have life tenure on the appeals court of the Northern District of Georgia.

[CatWoman]

25. yup

and I live here.

[sabrina 1]

42. So it's pointless to elect Democrats then? I remember the urging to 'vote even for Blue Dogs

because 'think about judicial nominations'. Well, thanks for the info, I guess they didn't explain to us poor, ignorant morons what that meant, so being as politically naive and ignorant as we are we assumed that when we WIN, which we did in 2008 all powerful positions in Government, like SOD, head of the FBI, CIA etc would be taken from the people we defeated and given to the Party the people voted for, for that very reason.

Sorry to have been so ignorant, now we are better informed we can be a lot more astute regarding future elections.

[Tx4obama]

50. See Comment #47 re 'District Court' nominees - they're picked differently than Appeals Court & ...

... they're picked differently than for the Circuit Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court. So, YES it DOES matter that we have a Democratic President for the higher court appointments.

[sabrina 1]

55. The president picked his nominees. As we expect a president to do. Sen. Leahy has the power to stop

these Republican appointees. That is why elected Democrats. So that we get Democrats in as many positions of power as possible. We have Republicans all over the place in this administration. Why is that? Are there no Democrats who are qualified to head the FBI eg, for SOD among other positions that we expected to see Democrats take over?

And if you're going to tell us that it's not the fault of Democrats because Republicans won't let them do anything, then don't bother. That is not an excuse and only makes my question re electing Democrats more important. If we elect Dems who then go and appoint Republicans, because winning doesn't mean much, then again, why vote at all? I hope the Party has some answers for these questions that don't involve always making excuses.

[Tx4obama]

56. My comment/explanation was in regarding to DISTRICT COURT judges in 'red' states

[sabrina 1]

61. Yes, and red states are exactly where we need to get more Democrats.

[Tx4obama]

62. In order to have more Democratic 'District Court' judges there needs to be a Dem U.S Senator...

The TWO U.S. Senators from each state are the ones that submit the 'lists' to the President to pick from for 'District Courts'

See Comment #47

This NOT new.

Even REPUBLICAN presidents pick District Court judges from a list that the two U.S. Senators submit from BLUE states that have 'two Democratic Senators' too.

[treestar]

72. Or they use something like this to deliberately

stir up rage against the Democrats/Obama. They know most people won't understand it enough not to jump at it, especially if pre-disposed. It's almost Fox-like.

[Gothmog]

5. Get rid of the blue slip process

Senator Leahy needs to junk the blue slip process. Right now, Texas has a large number of vacancies which Cornyn and Carnival Cruz are not pushing to fill

[atreides1]

77. Agreed

The blue-slip process had its genesis in the Senate tradition of senatorial
courtesy.

It's a procedure that is based on courtesy, not law!

[indepat]

7. I'm utterly speechless and feel America has been kicked in the groin considering seven times

as many Democrats reportedly get federally prosecuted as do Republicans. Either Democrats must be seven times more corrupt than Republicans or the Federal prosecution process has been corrupted by Republicans.

[Laelth]

8. Ouch. I'm a member of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

And I practice under it case law, obviously. This affects me directly, and I am not pleased.

-Laelth

[OnyxCollie]

9. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Baitball Blogger]

11. Is this horse-trading? Only, using judges?

[Doctor_J]

12. He is a bad joke that gets unfunnier by the day

I am now convinced he was let into the white house to destroy the party. I am pretty sure that's why there is no longer any talk of impeachment from Issa. Obama is getting more right-wing business done than a Repuke could.

[ProSense]

16. "I am now convinced he was let into the white house to destroy the party. "

"This President" is evil. The evidence is overwhelming.

[rhett o rick]

36. He isnt evil, that's absurd. He just has a propensity to appoint Republicans. Who knew? nm

[Tx4obama]

51. Republican states get GOP District Court judges, nothing new here. See Comment #47

[rhett o rick]

82. Just one big happy family. nm

[SCUBANOW]

38. it's all game and he is playing it well!

[sabrina 1]

43. Is it? You think it's a game, or did you forget the sarcasm thingy?

But if you meant it, who is he playing FOR if he's playing it so well. Let me guess, appointing Republican after Republican to his cabinet and now to the judiciary? That's not a difficult question to answer, is it?

[DJ13]

29. Obama is getting more right-wing business done than a Repuke could

Republicans promote the elite's conservative agenda, and Democratic Presidents make that agenda a priority to become law.

See the GOP wish list Bill Clinton passed in his 8 years as the prime example.

[CatWoman]

35. damn

that's kinda bizarre.........

[ProSense]

70. No, it's not when

you consider that some people hate "this President" as much as the RW.

Facts be damned.

[trishtrash]

14. Thanks, President Obama.

Maybe you have forgotten all of the work Georgians did in your campaigns, with record turnout and votes for you in one of the reddest states. I work in the legal field in Georgia and I know how important these judgeships are. Very sad.

[Tx4obama]

52. See Comment #47 regarding 'District Court' nominees

[ProSense]

18. "Under the proposed deal..."

<...>

Under the proposed deal, Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) would agree to stop blocking attorney Jill Pryor’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — a nomination that they have effectively held up for well over 1000 days. In return, Obama would nominate a George H.W. Bush-appointed judge — Chief Judge Julie Carnes of the Northern District of Georgia — to the other open seat on the Eleventh Circuit, creating a fourth vacancy on this federal trial court. Chambliss and Isakson would then be allowed to select three of the four attorneys named to these seats.

At least one precedent suggests that President Obama may regret striking this kind of deal. In 1997, President Clinton named Judge Frank Hull to the Eleventh Circuit as part of a compromise with Republican senators. Fourteen years later, the Eleventh Circuit became the only federal appeals court in the country to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional — every other appeals court to consider the question rejected the conservative arguments against the law. Hull provided the key vote to strike the law. While no one can know how the Roberts Court would have behaved if a less conservative judge had instead voted to uphold the law, the Supreme Court would have been much less likely to take this case if federal circuit courts were unanimous in upholding the law.

Additionally, at least one of the district court nominees Chambliss and Isakson are expected to name, attorney Mark Cohen, defended a voter suppression law when he was a lawyer for the State of Georgia. Though an attorneys’ actions while representing a client do not necessarily reflect their personal views, Senate Republicans used former DC Circuit nominee Caitlin Halligan’s advocacy in favor of gun laws on behalf of the State of New York as a reason to block her nomination. Now, however, Chambliss and Isakson apparently believe that the White House should ignore Cohen’s advocacy and nominate him anyway...if the White House agrees to this GOP-friendly bargain, it will likely be because of an absurd Senate practice that gives individual senators veto power over judicial nominees. Under the Senate’s “blue slip” rules — an anachronistic process that allows senators to veto nominees from their state — the state of Georgia is allocated certain seats on the Eleventh Circuit and Chambliss and Isakson have unilateral authority to block any nominees to those seats. Moreover, they are also empowered to block any nominee to a district court in Georgia. Though this process is rooted in a patronage system that no longer exists, Senate Democrats insist upon maintaining it. This Georgia deal could be the result.

Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has the power to prevent this deal from happening, however, and to eliminate Chambliss and Isakson’s veto power over Georgia nominees. In 2003, former Judiciary Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT) abandoned the blue slip rule in favor of process that allowed judicial nominations to move forward “provided that the Administration [] engaged in pre-nomination consultation with both of the home-state

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617011/white-house-considering-big-cave-republicans-judges/

[sabrina 1]

44. I'm sure Sen. Leahy will step in to stop this travesty from happening.

[tritsofme]

20. George Bush nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the District Court

At the recommendation of New York's Democratic senator, this is faux outrage.

[markpkessinger]

21. Yes, George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor to the district court . . .

. . . Show me where, however, he, or any other Republican, allowed liberal Democrats to pick THREE OF FOUR vacancies ON A SINGLE FEDERAL TRIAL COURT, and then I might buy your assertion of equivalency.

[Doctor_J]

22. I didn't even know that a president could just abdicate the duty of choosing judges

That this president would give that job to a toxic, malignant party like the current republicans is beyond disgusting.

[TheKentuckian]

33. He also nominated Souter to the Supreme Court, maybe things aren't exactly the same.

Maybe there has been some pretty nasty waters have gone under the bridge.

I also double dog dare ya to try to make a case that Sotomayor is anything thing like equal on the left end of the spectrum to the to fucking despicable Reich wing nuttery of some of these vermin.
In fact, I bet an easier case can be made that Sotomayor is pretty damn moderate.

There is no excuse to nominate a disenfranchiser, at what point does someone drawn a line? Eating babies?

I understand the practice but you can't let it dictate fundamental principles be cast aside, along with citizens. Everything has its limits which means the concept and the word "no" have to remain in the vocabulary.

You also have to accept the reality of their dominance on the benches and the nearly unlimited nature of their pursuit of their regressive agenda, the advancement of the interests of the wealthy, and utter disregard for truth and for "small people".

Better to bust up a "gentleman's agreement" then add to an already dangerous level of systemic entropy. AKA cutting your own throat. AKA eating the seed corn.

They stack extremist with consistently little to no resistance and we scramble to sneak in moderates, where will the balance land? We absolutely cannot put in right wing extremists when we have the ball, there is no sane argument and any Tit for tat is greatly overstated, at best.

[SidDithers]

24. And another outrage widget hits the shop floor...

*Clunk*

Sid

[sabrina 1]

45. You like Republicans?

I thought being you are here on DU you might be supportive of Democrats.

I hate to disappoint people who are thrilled about this travesty, but Sen. Leahy has the power to stop this and to tell the morons who are forcing this issue where to go.

Democrats across the country will be watching this with great interest especially considering this is an election year and Dems are half way out the door as it.

[markpkessinger]

63. Do be sure to inform Rep. John Lewis that his outrage is 'faux,' won't you? n/t

[blackspade]

27. WTF?!

Obama is either on the take or has been blackmailed.
No one is this stupid.

[ProSense]

28. I think

"Obama is either on the take or has been blackmailed.
No one is this stupid."

...he's being "blackmailed." If he's "on the take," he shouldn't be President. That's goes for being "blackmailed" too, I guess.

It's not possible that he's "stupid," right?

[blackspade]

30. I'm open to other suggestions.

Obama is definitely not stupid as I said in my last post.
As far as being on the take or blackmail....shrug.....Who the fuck knows at this point.
Half of the shit he does baffles and infuriates me.
If there were good reasons for it, I might not have such WTF responses.
I could see an exchange of one judge for another, but giving away 3:1 in a southern state? Madness.

[sabrina 1]

46. What do you think?

[Tx4obama]

53. See Comment #47 regarding 'District Court' nominees

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. Not at all. You and a great many others, myself included, foolishly believed what he said.

He's not stupid, he knows for whom he works and he works very, very hard for them.

Ignore what they say, watch what they do.

[UTUSN]

31. "this President" n/t

[L0oniX]

32. More evidence of the big good cop bad cop game they are playing on us.

[doc03]

34. This is another of his 8 dimensional chess moves, you all

just ain't smart enough to figure it out. You won't know how he outsmarted the Republicans for maybe months or years.

[SCUBANOW]

41. This may be true.

[theHandpuppet]

37. Disgusting.

Not much more to say.

[Tx4obama]

47. 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.
------

Also, there are many COMMENTS regarding this issue on the DU thread/link from Thursday, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024266548

---

Btw, Bush ignored the U.S. Senators' list once regarding 'District Court judges' 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.

[FSogol]

73. +1. Thanks for the info. n/t

[Tx4obama]

59. Btw, there currently are NO pending District Court nominees. Senate sent ALL back to WH on Dec 20th

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024278934

[neverforget]

60. Well at least the judiciary goes a little farther to the right. Oh well.

Maybe the Republicans will stop being mean to us after this.

If only the judiciary mattered at all.

[Historic NY]

81. Elections have consequences, vote Republicans..

in to your statehouses and other offices and your produce a gerrymandered system of voting in district where a Democrat hasn't a chance. My point is the little elections cause problems down the line. At one time Georgia had a Democrat for Senator. but he turned out to be bat-shit crazy.

[woo me with science]

65. There's a new assault every day.

Every damned day.

This country is being looted and destroyed from within by colluding Republicans and Third Way Democrats. We cannot afford any more corporatists and warmongers.

[jsr]

68. Trojaning for the 1% is hard work

but very rewarding

[woo me with science]

74. kick

[Demo_Chris]

66. The sad thing here is that NO ONE is surprised...

All the blue slip stuff is interesting, but it is concerning that people have come to expect this kind of nonsense from this President and from our party.

[ProSense]

71. If "no one is surprised"

"All the blue slip stuff is interesting, but it is concerning that people have come to expect this kind of nonsense from this President and from our party."

...why the reaction? Yeah, "blue slip stuff," pffft!

Facts are irrelevant.

[Demo_Chris]

75. Was the reaction "Nonsense, I can't believe that!" or was it "Crap, not again!"

I will leave that to others to decide.

[jsr]

67. You gotta do what corporate headquarters says

[adavid]

76. When the GOP

has power, they would do the same thing, right?


(sarcasm)

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. DU finally put some factual context to this specific OP ...

and what do you do?

Re-post it ... without any acknowledge of factual context.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. "This time, I'm sure Republicans will *finally* realize that I'm a man they can do business with..."

"No, really! I'm positive this time!"

[markpkessinger]

83. LOL! n/t

[Zorra]

80. Maybe in 2016 we can elect a Prez who would never even dream of nominating/appointing Republicans

to any position, ever.

No matter what anybody says, there is no ethical justification for appointing republicans to any position.