Looks like Gorsuch will be confirmed

they don't get automatically approved asshole


they are supposed to get a hearing though huh


just refusing to allow a hearing is NOT DOING THE JOB


NOT allowing a preideent to FILL ALL THE SMALLER COURTS JUDGE NEEDS is anti country you fucking hack


the republicans REFUSED to allow our FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT to appoint enough judges to fill the courts gaps


TRIALS WERE BEING CANCELED AND JUSTICE WAS BEING DENIED AMERICANS BECAUSE THE Rs WERE BEING PARTIASAN DICKHEADS
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/obama-judicial-nominees_n_3156050.html



Obama’s Judicial Nominees Blocked On All Sides By Senate Republicans

By Jennifer Bendery
X

11k





7.8k
WASHINGTON — It’s bad enough that there are 82 vacant federal judge slots around the country, a level so high that many observers have deemed it a crisis situation.
But perhaps even more startling is the fact that of those 82 vacant slots, 61 of them don’t even have a nominee.
On its face, the absence of nominees would appear to be a sign that President Barack Obama is slacking. After all, he is responsible for nominating judges, and he did put forward fewer nominees at the end of his first term than his two predecessors. But a closer look at data on judicial nominees, and conversations with people involved in the nomination process, reveals the bigger problem is Republican senators quietly refusing to recommend potential judges in the first place.
The process for moving judicial nominees is simple enough. A president takes the lead on circuit court nominees, while, per longstanding tradition, a senator kickstarts the process for district court nominees, which make up the bulk of the federal court system. Senators make recommendations from their home states, and the president works with them to get at least some of the nominees confirmed — the idea being that senators, regardless of party, are motivated to advocate for nominees from their states. The White House may look at other nominees on its own, but typically won’t move forward without input from the corresponding senators. Once a nominee is submitted to the Senate, he or she receives a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If approved, the nomination heads to the Senate floor for a full vote.
It’s hardly news that the judicial nomination process is gummed up. Democrats regularly blast Republicans for blocking Obama’s nominees after they clear the Senate Judiciary Committee with broad support, making them wait an average of 116 days for a confirmation vote. That’s three times longer than the average wait for President George W. Bush’s nominees. But these obstacles come at the end of the nomination process. It’s now clear that there’s a serious problem at the beginning, too.
It turns out that since Obama took office, senators from some states — particularly those represented by two Republicans — have simply refused to make recommendations, according to data recently published by the Alliance for Justice, a left-leaning association of more than 100 organizations focused on the federal judiciary.
Take Kansas, for example. The state is represented by Republican Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, neither of whom has put forward nominees for a district court slot there that has been vacant for 1,246 days. Their inaction hasn’t gone unnoticed — both senators have taken heat for not participating in the nomination process.
Or look at Texas, where Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz have not moved to fill seven vacant judicial slots, two of which have been vacant for 1,733 and 1,034 days, respectively, without a nominee. At least one Texas paper ran a piece suggesting Cornyn and former Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison were holding off on making judicial recommendations because they were hopeful Mitt Romney would become president in 2012.
There are four vacant judicial slots in Arizona, one of which has been vacant for 1,132 days. Neither of the state’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, have put forward a nominee for any those spots.
In total, 25 of the 61 vacancies without nominees are in states with two Republican senators, and another 14 are in states with one Republican senator and one Democratic senator. Seventeen are in states with two Democratic senators, and the remaining five are in other districts. That means many of the vacancies without nominees can be traced back to Senate Republicans who just aren’t participating in the process — a reality that flies in the face of Republicans’ chief complaint that Obama isn’t putting forward enough judicial nominees.
“It’s disingenuous at best for Republicans to complain about the number of judicial vacancies without nominees when Republicans themselves are responsible for the majority of those vacancies,” said Michelle Schwartz, director of Justice Programs for Alliance for Justice. “Nearly two-thirds of the vacancies without nominees are in states with at least one Republican senator, most of whom have consistently refused to work with the White House in good faith to identify qualified candidates.”
To be sure, there are states with long-vacant judgeships that are represented by two Democratic senators. But according to Alliance for Justice data, those instances are less frequent, the number of days those slots have been vacant is significantly lower and, in most cases, those senators have put forward nominees. In California, for example, which is represented by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, one judicial slot has been vacant for 575 days. But the senators have made a recommendation, and the White House is currently working with them to fill the judgeship.
Thirty-six of the current vacancies are considered “judicial emergencies.” At the circuit courts, that means that because of the vacancies, the number of cases per panel of judges exceeds 700, or stays between 500 and 700 for more than 18 months. In district courts, it means the number of cases per individual judge is more than 600, or between 430 and 600 for more than 18 months. The more overloaded judges are, the more delayed the process of moving civil and criminal matters through the justice system.
 
and next time don't refrain from allowing judges to be appointed by a black president like they did Obama


court cases were piling up all over the country because the republicans REFUSED to allow our first black president to appoint judges


the dems NEVER allowed that to happen to a republican president


they NEVER ALLOWED IT TO A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE


does the republicans still use 51 for a lower court appointee?

Republicans created a judicial emergency by their failure to confirm Obama nominees.

Now they have a problem with this? :0) Laughable
 
andf the democrats DID NOT CHANGE THE RULES FOR THE HIGH COURT


if the republicans do it its just not the same


WHY IS THIS BEING REPORTED THAT WAY???????

liberal bias in news my ass
 
Thirty-six of the current vacancies are considered “judicial emergencies.” At the circuit courts, that means that because of the vacancies, the number of cases per panel of judges exceeds 700, or stays between 500 and 700 for more than 18 months. In district courts, it means the number of cases per individual judge is more than 600, or between 430 and 600 for more than 18 months. The more overloaded judges are, the more delayed the process of moving civil and criminal matters through the justice system.









the republican party is trying to break the function of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



they are traitors
 
Here you go snowflake

giphy.gif
 
simple explanation.....Republicans got away with blocking Obama's pick because they could.......Republicans elected Trump because they could.......and Republicans will get Trump's nominees for the next four years (at least) because they can........next question.........
 
simple explanation.....Republicans got away with blocking Obama's pick because they could.......Republicans elected Trump because they could.......and Republicans will get Trump's nominees for the next four years (at least) because they can........next question.........

We will see what happens with the Senate next year, but you MIGHT be correct.

It could be that the Democrats get a majority and if that happens there will be real investigations and real opposition.
 
simple explanation.....Republicans got away with blocking Obama's pick because they could.......Republicans elected Trump because they could.......and Republicans will get Trump's nominees for the next four years (at least) because they can........next question.........

You mean for the next 3 years. Because the GOP now has set a precedent that no nominees get considered in the final year of a term.
 
You mean for the next 3 years. Because the GOP now has set a precedent that no nominees get considered in the final year of a term.

2.75 years because we are already three months into the first year.
 
You mean for the next 3 years. Because the GOP now has set a precedent that no nominees get considered in the final year of a term.

Its loosely called the Thurmond rule and its been around since 1968, hardly a precedent....

it has been almost 80 years since a Supreme Court nominee was “nominated and confirmed in an election year".

But there is a precedent being set.....by the Democrats, in that no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered.
 
Its loosely called the Thurmond rule and its been around since 1968, hardly a precedent....

it has been almost 80 years since a Supreme Court nominee was “nominated and confirmed in an election year".

But there is a precedent being set.....by the Democrats, in that no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered.

And Gorsuch wont be filibustered.
 
Its loosely called the Thurmond rule and its been around since 1968, hardly a precedent....

it has been almost 80 years since a Supreme Court nominee was “nominated and confirmed in an election year".

But there is a precedent being set.....by the Democrats, in that no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered.

The so-called "Thurmond rule" is a total myth - and even by myth standards, the guideline is AFTER the spring of an election year.

What the GOP did is unprecedented. And it will come around, I'm sure. And when it does, you'll be starting threads complaining about Dems doing the same thing.
 
The so-called "Thurmond rule" is a total myth - and even by myth standards, the guideline is AFTER the spring of an election year.

What the GOP did is unprecedented. And it will come around, I'm sure. And when it does, you'll be starting threads complaining about Dems doing the same thing.
there is a precedent being set.....by the Democrats, in that no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered.

What the GOP did is unprecedented.?......specifically ?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/obama-judicial-nominees_n_3156050.html



Obama’s Judicial Nominees Blocked On All Sides By Senate Republicans

By Jennifer Bendery
X

11k





7.8k
WASHINGTON — It’s bad enough that there are 82 vacant federal judge slots around the country, a level so high that many observers have deemed it a crisis situation.
But perhaps even more startling is the fact that of those 82 vacant slots, 61 of them don’t even have a nominee.
On its face, the absence of nominees would appear to be a sign that President Barack Obama is slacking. After all, he is responsible for nominating judges, and he did put forward fewer nominees at the end of his first term than his two predecessors. But a closer look at data on judicial nominees, and conversations with people involved in the nomination process, reveals the bigger problem is Republican senators quietly refusing to recommend potential judges in the first place.
The process for moving judicial nominees is simple enough. A president takes the lead on circuit court nominees, while, per longstanding tradition, a senator kickstarts the process for district court nominees, which make up the bulk of the federal court system. Senators make recommendations from their home states, and the president works with them to get at least some of the nominees confirmed — the idea being that senators, regardless of party, are motivated to advocate for nominees from their states. The White House may look at other nominees on its own, but typically won’t move forward without input from the corresponding senators. Once a nominee is submitted to the Senate, he or she receives a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If approved, the nomination heads to the Senate floor for a full vote.
It’s hardly news that the judicial nomination process is gummed up. Democrats regularly blast Republicans for blocking Obama’s nominees after they clear the Senate Judiciary Committee with broad support, making them wait an average of 116 days for a confirmation vote. That’s three times longer than the average wait for President George W. Bush’s nominees. But these obstacles come at the end of the nomination process. It’s now clear that there’s a serious problem at the beginning, too.
It turns out that since Obama took office, senators from some states — particularly those represented by two Republicans — have simply refused to make recommendations, according to data recently published by the Alliance for Justice, a left-leaning association of more than 100 organizations focused on the federal judiciary.
Take Kansas, for example. The state is represented by Republican Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, neither of whom has put forward nominees for a district court slot there that has been vacant for 1,246 days. Their inaction hasn’t gone unnoticed — both senators have taken heat for not participating in the nomination process.
Or look at Texas, where Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz have not moved to fill seven vacant judicial slots, two of which have been vacant for 1,733 and 1,034 days, respectively, without a nominee. At least one Texas paper ran a piece suggesting Cornyn and former Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison were holding off on making judicial recommendations because they were hopeful Mitt Romney would become president in 2012.
There are four vacant judicial slots in Arizona, one of which has been vacant for 1,132 days. Neither of the state’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, have put forward a nominee for any those spots.
In total, 25 of the 61 vacancies without nominees are in states with two Republican senators, and another 14 are in states with one Republican senator and one Democratic senator. Seventeen are in states with two Democratic senators, and the remaining five are in other districts. That means many of the vacancies without nominees can be traced back to Senate Republicans who just aren’t participating in the process — a reality that flies in the face of Republicans’ chief complaint that Obama isn’t putting forward enough judicial nominees.
“It’s disingenuous at best for Republicans to complain about the number of judicial vacancies without nominees when Republicans themselves are responsible for the majority of those vacancies,” said Michelle Schwartz, director of Justice Programs for Alliance for Justice. “Nearly two-thirds of the vacancies without nominees are in states with at least one Republican senator, most of whom have consistently refused to work with the White House in good faith to identify qualified candidates.”
To be sure, there are states with long-vacant judgeships that are represented by two Democratic senators. But according to Alliance for Justice data, those instances are less frequent, the number of days those slots have been vacant is significantly lower and, in most cases, those senators have put forward nominees. In California, for example, which is represented by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, one judicial slot has been vacant for 575 days. But the senators have made a recommendation, and the White House is currently working with them to fill the judgeship.
Thirty-six of the current vacancies are considered “judicial emergencies.” At the circuit courts, that means that because of the vacancies, the number of cases per panel of judges exceeds 700, or stays between 500 and 700 for more than 18 months. In district courts, it means the number of cases per individual judge is more than 600, or between 430 and 600 for more than 18 months. The more overloaded judges are, the more delayed the process of moving civil and criminal matters through the justice system.

Huffington Post is a left wing rag and not at all credible.
 
Back
Top