Archive for federal judges

“New definition of a consensus nominee is someone who Republicans like, Dems can stomach…”

wtf moment in progress

 

Judicial nominations have been moving at a snail’s pace, and of course, Republicans have blocked the president every step of the way. The courts have been overloaded, backed up, cannot function properly, and so they are unable to handle cases as judges are unavailable to preside over court proceedings. Trying to get your day in court has become as challenging as passing Democratic legislation in our current Congress.

 

To make matters worse, many Bush judges are already in place, which explains so many decisions that make Progressive heads explode.

 

Which brings us to the good news and bad news.

 

The good news: President Obama has found himself a judicial nominee that appeals to Republicans.

 

The bad news: President Obama has found himself a judicial nominee that appeals to Republicans.

 

Via the Los Angeles Times:

 

President Obama, who has seen court nominees run into Republican roadblocks, may have found a winning strategy for putting a judge on the powerful U.S. appeals court here: He chose a highly regarded corporate lawyer whose resume suggests he could have been a Republican nominee.

Sri Srinivasan, 46, was a law clerk for two Republican-appointed judges after graduating from Stanford University, and he worked in the George W. Bush Justice Department for five years before joining the Obama team as deputy U.S. solicitor general.

 

This man, per the Times, is likely to be confirmed. Bush’s guy. From the Bush Justice Department, which, by the way, is an oxymoron.

 

More bad news: Senator Ted Cruz likes him. He and Srinivasan were law clerks in Virginia and at the Supreme Court together.

 

More good news: He would be the first South Asian native to serve on a U.S. appeals court.

 

More bad news:  He could be a leading candidate for the Supreme Court if and when a vacancy opens up.

 

More good news: He’s a good listener and open-minded, per a colleague.

 

More bad news:

 

Liberal activists, unions and human rights groups refused to support him. Most of them say they decided to remain silent, not wanting to upset the White House or stand in the way of an Obama nominee…. The strongest opposition to Srinivasan has come from human rights advocates who have sued multinational corporations.

 

Are you getting nervous yet? No? Let me nudge you along:

 

Marco Simons, legal director for Earth Rights International, wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee complaining of Srinivasan’s “propensity for pro-corporate, anti-human rights judicial activism.” As a lawyer in Washington, Srinivasan has “built a practice around defending powerful multinational companies against allegations of human rights abuses such as war crimes, torture and summary execution,” Simons wrote… “The new definition of a consensus nominee is someone who the Republicans like and the Democrats can stomach because they don’t want to defy the president,” he said.

 

There’s your “liberal” president, GOP.

VIDEO: McCain: “I don’t understand” why GOP would filibuster gun legislation. Should’ve stopped after the word “filibuster.”

filibuster cartoon reid

What a surprise! John McCain on a Sunday talk show! But I digress.

Think Progress has a post up titled, McCain: ‘I Don’t Understand’ Why GOP Would Filibuster Gun Legislation.

That should have read, “McCain: ‘I don’t understand why the GOP would filibuster.’” Most of us sure don’t understand why the GOP would filibuster 99% of what they freaking filibuster.

Well, actually we do. Their raison d’être is obstruction, their goal (other than acquiring more money and power, that is) is to tarnish President Obama and his legacy, and their appallingly gleeful reliance on perpetual blocking comes from the successes they’ve had.

Did I mention that Harry Reid (and many Democrats) is aiding and abetting them? I did? Good.

Here is the entire Face the Nation interview. Relevant segment starts at about 9:45:

McCain:

I don’t understand it. The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.

Schieffer:

So you’d encourage Republicans not to filibuster?

McCain:

I would not only encourage it, I don’t understand it. What are we afraid of? … Why would we not want…  Why not take it up and amend it and debate? The American people would profit from it. I do not understand why United States senators want to block debate when the leader has said we can have amendments.

Report: Sen. Harry Reid “not inclined to use” tools he has to overcome filibuster of background check bill

new rules 2

It was only yesterday that I posted, “Harry Reid hints at filibuster ‘nuclear option’… again. Try using it this time, Harry.” I peppered that post with comparisons of Reid to an ineffectual parent plus comments like:

– But Harry shook hands instead, although he has threatened to revisit filibuster reform from time to time, getting Democratic hopes up, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. We’ll believe it when we see it.

– Of course you will, dear.

– I will NOT get my hopes up, I will NOT get my hopes up…

– That would be novel. Just do it already.

From the tweets and comments I received, we all had the same reaction. And for good reason.

Roll Call:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has the tools he needs to overcome any initial filibuster of a firearms background check bill, but he may not be inclined to use them.

Indeed, the Nevada Democrat is biding his time, even as President Barack Obama embarks on an aggressive new push for votes on a variety of gun-related measures, including background checks and a new prohibition on assault weapons.

The trouble for Reid is the new process — established in January through modest filibuster rules changes — may have a fatal flaw in practice when the Nevada Democrat actually wants the bill involved to become law.

And what might that fatal flaw be? Reid’s New Rules do not prevent senators from blocking a bill from passing once it’s up for debate.

Did I mention that he still needs at least 60 votes? That he still needs a super majority? That real filibuster reform is still just a twinkle in sane and reasonable Democrats’ eyes? And that Republicans despise compromise so much that they won’t even use the word?

Here’s what “compromise” means to the GOP:

Here’s what Harry Reid means to those of us who are fed up:

peanuts lucy charlie brown football 2Here’s what many of you may be doing after reading this post:

banghead

Harry Reid hints at filibuster “nuclear option”… again. Try using it this time, Harry.

peanuts lucy charlie brown football

Harry Reid reminds me of those ineffectual, weary parents who you see in a public place repeatedly scolding his annoyingly obstinate, uncontrollable toddler, saying things like, “If you keep that up, you’ll get punished.” Then, “Just keep pushing, young man, and there will be no McFlurry dessert for you.” Followed by, “I’m warning you.”

And then does nothing.

And the kid keeps misbehaving.

In that scenario, Daddy Dearest was about as effective as Gene Wilder intended (not) to be as Willy Wonka:

Which brings us to the unprecedented use of the filibuster by the GOP, their favorite weapon, the one they’ve used to obstruct just about every proposal by President Obama and the Democrats… including judicial nominations.

Over the years, we’ve witnessed the Reagan/Bush conservative judicial trajectory and subsequent decline (see: Scalia, Antonin et al) of our judiciary, and as a result, our democracy, civil rights, and legal system. And since Obama took office, his judicial nominations have been moving at a glacial pace.

He did manage to nominate the first openly gay black man to sit on a federal district court, the first Asian American lesbian, and the first South Asian. But at least 35 nominees are waiting for the Senate to vote, and there are still 50 more vacancies. That’s called GOP “payback.”

So Dick Durbin said, “We need to revisit” the filibuster rules and Senate Dems thought Harry Reid should revisit filibuster reform.

All that because Harry Reid insisted on that “gentleman’s agreement” with Mitch McConnell, the ridiculous handshake deal he made, saying he was “satisfied” with the Republicans just “agreeing” to be more reasonable.  Remember that?

As you may recall, Jeff Merkley’s plan for reform would not have ended the filibuster, and the Dems would still be able to use the option to filibuster when they are the minority party. It would have taken more effort and transparency to voice opposition, but the filibuster would have remained intact.

But Harry shook hands instead, although he has threatened to revisit filibuster reform from time to time, getting Democratic hopes up, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. We’ll believe it when we see it.

Roll Call:

The Nevada Democrat said that while he was “happy” with the modest rules changes adopted in January on a bipartisan basis, the number of pending judicial nominations led him to warn his colleagues of the potential for the chamber’s rules to be modified at any point in the year, not just at the opening of a new Congress.

“All within the sound of my voice, including my Democratic senators and the Republican senators who I serve with, should understand that we as a body have the power on any given day to change the rules with a simple majority, and I will do that if necessary,” Reid said on Nevada Public Radio.

Of course you will, dear.

peanuts lucy charlie brown football 2

Harry:

“We made changes, but the time will tell whether they’re big enough. I’m going to wait and build a case. If the Republicans in the Senate don’t start approving some judges and don’t start helping get some of these nominations done, then we’re going to have to take more action.”

“Just keep pushing, young man, and there will be no McFlurry dessert for you.”

But it does get more promising (I will NOT get my hopes up, I will NOT get my hopes up…). Reid said it’s not only about judges, but also the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

“Now, we have the Republican-dominated D.C. Court of Appeals who have said, look, the president can’t even do recess appointments now,” Reid said. “So, we’re left with few alternatives, and we’re going to have to move forward and do something to change that.

Yes, we’re going to have to do something. We’ve had to do something for years now.

“If you keep that up, you’ll get punished.”

That would be novel. Just do it already.

mitch mcconnell filibuster cartoon get rid of Obama

The GOP Supreme Court Coup Is the Carbon Monoxide Asphyxiating Democracy

democracy emergency

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

The Republicans long ago figured out that the way to have legislative control over the United States is to pack the federal courts. [...]

Recently, we noted how Antonin Scalia’s withering disdain for Congress erupted into open contempt and dismissal of the legislative branch in oral arguments over the Voting Rights Act.  [...]

We also noted a short time back how the Republicans control the DC Court of Appeals and have now since the Reagan administration.  Because the DC Court of Appeals hears many of the most important federal cases, it has made a very large number of benchmark decisions that have been essentially legislating from the bench and creating an imbalance of power between the three branches of government (something the majority of 5 on the Rehnquist and Roberts Supreme Courts have excelled at). [...]

Currently the DC Court of Appeals is short four judges because the Republicans won’t allow most of Obama’s appointments through (holding up some lower court appointments for literally years).  Then they pack the federal benches when there is a Republican president, and the Democrats only rarely block GOP appointments.  [...]

As reported in the New York Times on March 6, “Republicans Block Judicial Nominee’s Confirmation for a Second Time”  [...]

The harm to the Constitution that has been done by the GOP strategic brilliance in manipulating the federal bench is incalculable. [...]

Even if the Democrats proceeded with serious filibuster reform (an up or down vote as the Republicans used to demand), it would literally take decades for the federal bench to be restored to a stance of equilibrium.  That is because the Republican planted judges are so entrenched – with appointments for life – that their investment will pay off for them for years to come.

Please read the rest here.

Pres. Obama pushing to diversify federal judiciary despite GOP obstruction

blocked i can haz unblock

Earlier I posted that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sticking around. One of the reasons so many of us were biting our nails over who would win the presidency was our fear that another Republican president would continue the Reagan/Bush conservative judicial trajectory and subsequent decline (see: Scalia, Antonin et al) of our judiciary, and as a result, our democracy, civil rights, and legal system.

But even with an Obama win, judicial nominations have been moving at a snail’s pace, and of course, Republicans have blocked the president every step of the way.

Let’s hope that will finally begin to change. WaPo:

Reelected with strong support from women, ethnic minorities and gays, Obama is moving quickly to change the face of the federal judiciary by the end of his second term, setting the stage for another series of drawn-out confrontations with Republicans in Congress.

The president has named three dozen judicial candidates since January and is expected to nominate scores more over the next few months, aides said. The push marks a significant departure from the sluggish pace of appointments throughout much of his first term, when both Republicans and some Democrats complained that Obama had not tried hard enough to fill vacancies on federal courts.

The new wave of nominations is part of an effort by Obama to cement a legacy that long outlives his presidency and makes the court system more closely resemble the changing society it governs, administration officials said. [...]

Obama has already broken more barriers with his judicial appointments than any other president, aides said. At the circuit court level, four states now have their first female justices, five have their first black justices and two have their first Hispanics. Sonia Sotomayor also became the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court.

Not to mention, President Obama has nominated the first openly gay black man to sit on a federal district court, the first Asian American lesbian, and the first South Asian.

As we speak, 35 nominees are waiting for the Senate to vote, and there are still 50 more vacancies.

It would be novel if the GOP would consider doing their jobs and allow the president to do his instead of repeatedly putting these up:

roadblock brick wall

Republican Federal Judge: How the GOP Has Packed the Courts With Partisan Hacks

scales of injustice

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

The hijacking of the federal judiciary by the Republican Party – through the appointment of aggressive partisan judges combined with preventing votes on nominations by Democratic presidents – is the hidden cancer on US government.  The sudden nixing of recess appointments last week by a DC appellate court panel of three Republican-appointed judges (in this case Obama filling empty National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seats and appointing Richard Cordray to chair the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) during a recess to circumvent endless Republican sabotage in the Senate) is symbolic of the macro-subversion of justice through manipulation of the federal bench, including, of course the Supreme Court. [...]

Enter David Sentelle, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  Not only is the DC appellate court the most powerful in the land, it is essentially the pre-trial hearing ground for government cases before they reach the Supreme Court (if the Supreme Court chooses to hear an appeal).

Last week, Sentelle headed the three-judge panel that voided the NLRB and CFPB appointments.  As we know, unlike elected officials, federal judges are appointed for life (unless they are impeached by Congress, resign or die).  [...]

But to revisit just a few of Sentelle’s GOP water carrying rulings, we can start with his leading the overturning of the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter as obtained by Lawrence Walsh, independent prosecutor for the Iran-Contra scandal.  

Sentelle changed the course of US history when he appointed Ken Starr to oversee the so-called Whitewater investigation of the Clintons.  [...]

Who then supervised Ken Starr?, Why a federal DC appellate court special division headed by Sentelle – which allowed Starr to proceed on an investigation that had morphed into what Joe Conason and Gene Lyons called in a must-read book: “The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.”  Clinton would have never been impeached if it were not for Sentelle carrying out the political dirty work of Helms and Faircloth on behalf of the Republicans on Capitol Hill. [...]

The calamitous impact of the strategic long-range control of the top levels of the federal bench by Republicans continues unabated.

A Januray 5 Los Angeles Times article, “Obama struggles to nominate, confirm federal judges,” notes…

[Obama] has had fewer judges confirmed than any first-term president in a quarter of a century, and he is the first chief executive unable to appoint anyone to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decides challenges to federal regulations.

This is also true of appointments to regulatory agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board and the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. [...]

Given Harry Reid’s cave on filibuster reform, relief does not appear to be on the way — for either judiciary or regulatory appointments.

Please read the rest here.