Biden remaking the federal judiciary

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Thank you Donald Trumpf and Herschel Walker for handing the Senate to the Democratic Party

Biden secures 100th US judge, blunting Trump's impact on bench

The US Senate on Tuesday confirmed the 100th federal judge appointed by President Joe Biden, as he works to dilute the impact his predecessor Donald Trump had on the courts.

Under the US Constitution, presidents appoint Supreme Court justices and federal judges for life, with Congress' upper chamber confirming or rejecting the nominee.

In theory, judges are politically impartial, but their previous legal decisions and the president who appointed them generally shed some light on their beliefs and leanings.

Gina Mendez-Miro, a 49-year-old lawyer, became the latest judge confirmed to the US Federal Court for the District of Puerto Rico, after a 54-45 vote Tuesday in the Senate.

Because Democrats have controlled the Senate throughout Biden's presidency, he has been able to vet nominees like Mendez-Miro at an accelerated pace.

In an effort to increase diversity in the judiciary, Biden has put forth candidates with traditionally underrepresented backgrounds: three quarters have been women and only one-third have been white, according to the American Constitution Society.

https://www.rawstory.com/amp/biden-...e-blunting-trump-s-impact-on-bench-2659419486
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
he's running behind......Trump did 256 in 4 years.....100 in two is better than Obama though.....he only did 173 his first term and 156 in his second....
 
gotta love the doublespeak from most people about the courts supposedly being 'non political' while demanding that only THEIR politics are followed by their nominations
 
PostmodernProphet said:
he's running behind......Trump did 256 in 4 years.....100 in two is better than Obama though.....he only did 173 his first term and 156 in his second....
Click to expand...

Biden has only been in power two years. Trump had four.

Obama faced a GOP Senate his last 6 years that would not approve a lot of his nominees, and in fact the GOP Senate left left many vacancies on the federal bench that Trump could backfill once he was sworn in.
 
Cypress said:
Thank you Donald Trumpf and Herschel Walker for handing the Senate to the Democratic Party
Click to expand...

It bothers me that the judiciary has been politicized. Aren't judges from the local level on up supposed to be impartial when administering/interpreting the law?
 
Cypress said:
Biden has only been in power two years. Trump had four.

Obama faced a GOP Senate his last 6 years that would not approve a lot of his nominees, and in fact the GOP Senate left left many vacancies on the federal bench that Trump could backfill once he was sworn in.
Click to expand...

Including leaving the U.S. Supreme Court a justice short for nearly a year.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
It bothers me that the judiciary has been politicized. Aren't judges from the local level on up supposed to be impartial when administering/interpreting the law?
Click to expand...

that all went away just a short decade or two after ratification. since then, the judiciary has been mostly political as well because we the people lost our way and ideals.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
It bothers me that the judiciary has been politicized. Aren't judges from the local level on up supposed to be impartial when administering/interpreting the law?
Click to expand...

I don't think they should be political partisans or political activists, like Clarence Thomas.

But there are legitimate judicial philosophies that range in tone and tenure.

The key is to be consistent in a legitimate judicial philosopy.

Conservative justices historically read the equal protection clause very narrowly

But when George Dumbya Bush's election in 2000 appeared to be in jeopardy, the conservative justices flipped on a dime and read the equal protection clause quite radically.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think they should be political partisans or political activists, like Clarence Thomas.

But there are legitimate judicial philosophies that range in tone and tenure.

The key is to be consistent in a legitimate judicial philosopy.

Conservative justices historically read the equal protection clause very narrowly

But when George Dumbya Bush's election in 2000 appeared to be in jeopardy, the conservative justices flipped on a dime and read the equal protection clause quite radically.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that all went away just a short decade or two after ratification. since then, the judiciary has been mostly political as well because we the people lost our way and ideals.
Click to expand...

You could be correct about that. RWers think that "activist judges" are anathema, unless of course they are RW activist judges. LWers are the same, although somewhat less so. How do we make sure that their rulings will be impartial and based on actual law, and not political slant? It's almost impossible to pry them off the bench once they're on it.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
You could be correct about that. RWers think that "activist judges" are anathema, unless of course they are RW activist judges. LWers are the same, although somewhat less so. How do we make sure that their rulings will be impartial and based on actual law, and not political slant? It's almost impossible to pry them off the bench once they're on it.
Click to expand...

well, first off we need to confront the idea that somehow one side is less political than the other, i.e. LWers are the same, although somewhat less so. The truth is that one side is as vehemently political as the other. The second thing to do is help all those terrified individuals get over the mind numbing panic and fear they have of what the other side would do to them should they win. The third, and most important, thing to do is try to teach them what actual freedom, as intended by the founders, truly is and that it is not something to be afraid of. So far, that's a losing game. The terror that exists in those people is so strong that any hint or notion of that freedom brings about instant accusations of that person being aligned with one side or the other instead of the reality that the person is just trying to advocate for the Constitution as it is truly written.

Until then, it's just an escalation of insults, fear, and violence.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
well, first off we need to confront the idea that somehow one side is less political than the other, i.e. LWers are the same, although somewhat less so. The truth is that one side is as vehemently political as the other. The second thing to do is help all those terrified individuals get over the mind numbing panic and fear they have of what the other side would do to them should they win. The third, and most important, thing to do is try to teach them what actual freedom, as intended by the founders, truly is and that it is not something to be afraid of. So far, that's a losing game. The terror that exists in those people is so strong that any hint or notion of that freedom brings about instant accusations of that person being aligned with one side or the other instead of the reality that the person is just trying to advocate for the Constitution as it is truly written.

Until then, it's just an escalation of insults, fear, and violence.
Click to expand...

Hooray for politics! It has always been so. What if we just got rid of left and right and political parties, and just voted for PEOPLE. People who aren't in it for power but to actually serve.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
gotta love the doublespeak from most people about the courts supposedly being 'non political' while demanding that only THEIR politics are followed by their nominations
Click to expand...

When the GOP has as a REQUIREMENT that Supreme Court Nominees belong to a partisan organization, the selections are obviously partisan.

I have no such expectations or demands for Supreme Court judges. However, I expect them to respect precedent. I expect them not to leak information. I expect them not to be speaking at partisan gatherings.

The only group of judges that do this are conservative judges. Coney-Barrett, IMHO, joins Alito and Thomas as complete partisan hacks. Thomas should not be on the court, period, nor should Alito. Both have committed breaches of ethics that are not acceptable or forgivable. By and large, I take far less issue with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts. They are, however, enabling these things to continue because of their ingrained and useless desire for the courts to operate under a veil of secrecy.
 
Concart said:
When the GOP has as a REQUIREMENT that Supreme Court Nominees belong to a partisan organization, the selections are obviously partisan.
Click to expand...
if your first reaction is to solely blame republicans while ignoring the democrats doing the same exact thing, you're too stupid to be part of the conversation.

Concart said:
I have no such expectations or demands for Supreme Court judges. However, I expect them to respect precedent. I expect them not to leak information. I expect them not to be speaking at partisan gatherings.

The only group of judges that do this are conservative judges. Coney-Barrett, IMHO, joins Alito and Thomas as complete partisan hacks. Thomas should not be on the court, period, nor should Alito. Both have committed breaches of ethics that are not acceptable or forgivable. By and large, I take far less issue with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts. They are, however, enabling these things to continue because of their ingrained and useless desire for the courts to operate under a veil of secrecy.
Click to expand...

are you really that ignorant? or just obtuse? thinking, even for a millisecond, that judges RBG and other left leaning judges didn't give speeches, you're just partisan crap.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if your first reaction is to solely blame republicans while ignoring the democrats doing the same exact thing, you're too stupid to be part of the conversation.



are you really that ignorant? or just obtuse? thinking, even for a millisecond, that judges RBG and other left leaning judges didn't give speeches, you're just partisan crap.
Click to expand...

I never said they didn't give speeches. I said they didn't give speeches to partisan organizations. Guess you are going to say nothing of substance and just talk about me again. Cool. I'll keep you appraised of the highlights.
 
Concart said:
I never said they didn't give speeches. I said they didn't give speeches to partisan organizations. Guess you are going to say nothing of substance and just talk about me again. Cool. I'll keep you appraised of the highlights.
Click to expand...

when are you going to change your party symbol to the ostrich head in the sand? though it's good to see that you're accepting your narcissism. maybe next you can see how toxic it makes you.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
when are you going to change your party symbol to the ostrich head in the sand? though it's good to see that you're accepting your narcissism. maybe next you can see how toxic it makes you.
Click to expand...

You referred to me five times in a single post, and to the topic zero times. Another egg sandwich for breakfast. I did cardio this morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top