Republicans Now Blocking Obama's Picks For Lower Courts, Dems Threaten Retaliation

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats said Thursday that Republicans were preventing votes on some of President Barack Obama's U.S. district court nominees, a game-changing tactic that would bring retaliation against a GOP president some day.

While some of Obama's lower court nominees have been branded judicial activists by Republicans, both parties have traditionally agreed they deserve a filibuster-free confirmation vote that needs a simple majority.

A filibuster is a blocking tactic that requires 60 votes in the 100-member Senate before there can be an up-or-down confirmation vote.

The strategy has been used by both parties to prevent votes on nominees to the higher-level federal appellate courts. U.S. District judges have been spared the tactic in deference to home state senators, who often work together to recommend nominees.

The political warning came from Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Patrick Leahy at the weekly meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where five district court nominees were sent to the full Senate. Three had strong Republican objections.

Republicans assert they have every right to oppose nominees they consider liberal judicial activists, but the party's future strategy is unclear. While 30 of Obama's lower court nominees have been approved by the Senate, another 17 are waiting for a vote – including five approved in committee Thursday.

Whitehouse, D-R.I., said, "We are on a track right now to destroy a tradition of senatorial courtesy to the senators of the home state.

"Traditionally, when two home state senators approved a nominee...they got a straight up-or-down vote without procedural obstruction.

"Erecting a blockade for a district court nominee is a new threshold we will cross. Once that tiger is let out of a cage, it will never get back in."

He said if Republicans continue on this course, a GOP president one day may experience the same tactic.

Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said, "I feel very strongly about what the senator is saying."

In late July, Democratic senators asked for unanimous agreement to vote up-or-down on all the court nominees then awaiting confirmation. Republicans objected, leaving Majority Leader Harry Reid with the alternative of taking no action or tying up the Senate by trying to round up 60 votes for each nominee to break a filibuster. Reid chose not to tie up the Senate.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., responded to Whitehouse that he understood the warning but added, "The fact is, this hasn't happened. To be lectured on something that hasn't happened, I find it difficult to comprehend.

"I have no intention of filibustering a district court nominee and don't know of any other senator" planning the tactic.

Whitehouse said, "A warning after the fact is no longer a warning. Once we cross the threshold, we can't go back."

The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said that while the views of home state senators should be considered, "I believe no judge should be given a lifetime appointment based solely" on the home state senators' support.

At the outset of the Judiciary meeting, Sessions said, "There is no question that the president, a former liberal law professor, intends to pack the courts with as many activists who will promote his vision of what America should be as he can.

"But Republicans will not stand quietly by and allow the rule of law in America to be historically altered by a federal judiciary that is agenda-oriented. If anything, we have been far too generous with our consent."

The nominees sent to the full Senate on Thursday with party splits are:

Edward Chen, nominated for the Northern District of California and Louis Butler, Jr., for the Western District of Wisconsin, both approved 12-7; and John McConnell Jr. for the District of Rhode Island, approved 13-6.

Two others were approved without opposition: Beryl Howell and Robert Wilkins, both to serve in the District of Columbia.

Comments

[Dunkleberger Karl]

02:17 AM on 09/25/2010

We dems will resort to 1st amendment rights if we loose!

[rebel9999]

03:01 PM on 09/24/2010

good. Limit the damage he can do. I like hearing them complain about their arse being kicked on a daily basis.

[meko]

02:28 PM on 09/24/2010

When Democrats were filibustering and blocking Republican judicial appointments in 2005, Trent Lott and Bill Friest put a stop to it by threatening to invoke the "nuclear option"

It goes like this.

First the party brings a motion to the floor for an up/down vote and the other party starts a filibuster.

Then the majority party tries to bring a cloture vote that fails.

Then a Majority senator could raise a point of order arguing that the requirement of a three-fifths vote to cut off debate on judicial nominees is unconstitutional.

Then the VP rules with him.

The presiding officer could submit that question to the full Senate for a vote. Under the Standing Rules, that vote would be subject to a filibuster, too. But the presiding officer could simply declare that it wasn't. That would lead, to another appeal, another tabling motion, and then another simple majority vote on the question whether Rule XXII is unconstitutional.

Bam. No more filibuster for anyone.

When the Republicans threatened this before, the Democrats caved and stopped filibustering so they could retain the right to filibuster. The Democrats could threaten this now, but they don't seem to have the will. Maybe they want the filibuster for themselves so they can filibuster Republican appointments.

But if they try that, I expect a repeat of 2005 - either Dems cave and don't use the filibuster so they can claim to have the right to have it, or Republicans blow it away.

[Salvador Doggy]

01:44 PM on 09/24/2010

Why is this post being deleted? Deletions for ideological reasons are against policy. The delivery is well within the traditions of other posts of this site. Is there any issue of other than ideological here? I've sent a note to tech support asking why this post is being deleted. Is there a better place to send a query?

===================

Louis Butler of Wisconsin should not be approved. The only reason he is available for the post is that he was rejected by the voters of Wisconsin. Voted off of our Supreme Court.

Our two Democratic senators approve of him? Well, we don't approve of our Democratic senators. Cr@p like this is why Feingold is losing the senate race. He's not representing us.

[frappe]

01:05 AM on 09/25/2010

...been far too much scrubbing going on.

[aechmiafasciata]

12:43 PM on 09/24/2010

“MILLENIAL'S VIEW"

'am a Millenial [29 and younger]. Memorializing the past is irrelevant. Different time, different agenda. President Obama political root is an ALARMING EXTREMIST AND LIBERAL AGENDA.

My generation are acutely cognizant of his polarizing ACTIVISM . OUR FUTURE IS LEVERAGED. To my critics, your retorts degrade yourself, and elevates my point. This is America, 'am still entitled to make an opinion, albeit my tender age.

Political appointees with extreme activism threatens citizens in every aspect. 2 years into his Presidency, the President's policies decimated the middle class with BIG GOVERNMENT, irresponsible financial policies, exponential expansion of socialistic programs at the expense of the middle class. Witnessing my colleagues lost their jobs held over 25 years, is a bitter lump stuck in my throat.

Federal funding for EVERY WELFARE NEEDS - free housing, food stamps. cash, Medicaid, and education paid for by the Middle Class through taxes, whille struggling to meet basic needs - mortgages, meager wages, health care, food and education for their children - all their burdens. NO JUSTICE.

Mom is a Federal Judge - she says, of the 16 nominees, 7 were unanimously confirmed; 3 by voice vote; 4 roll calls and 1 held over. A confirmation is PERMANENT. Hardly "Obstructionism".

The Loyal Opposition has the solemn and moral duty to raise concerns. No judge should be confirmed lifetime appointment when agendas are distorted activisms, liberalism, and justice by bleeding hearts .

IF OBTRUCTIONISM IS TO BALANCE THE PLAYING FIELD, THIS MILLENIAL IS ALL FOR IT

[MaryJane]

03:15 PM on 09/24/2010

Any word spoken against yours demeans the speaker and lifts you up on a pedestal? That's funny. Sounds like you're an alarmist and extremist mommy's child. Hopefully with maturity you will grow out of your baby steps, but I'll not hold my breath.

As for the opposition's moral bevity, that's another good one. Keep the jokes coming my child.

[betteporter68]

12:39 PM on 09/24/2010

This is what elections are really all about - the courts. From district courts up to the Supreme Court, the rethugs want to "pack the courts with as many activists who will promote their vision of what America should be." Sessions is accusing Dems of doing the exact thing that rethugs want to do. Letting Obama's nominees go through hinders their plans. And, yes, the Dems and Obama need to grow a spine. The bullies will never play nice folks.

[meko]

02:30 PM on 09/24/2010

If Dems want to pass these appointments they need to read Robert's Rules of order and use the procedural tools available to them.

[MaryJane]

03:17 PM on 09/24/2010

Hah! Republicans replaced Robert's Rules with Queensbury Rules decades ago. Come on Dems, it's time to start fighting back.

[quintus]

11:50 AM on 09/24/2010

The REAL reason Democrats continue to wimp out again and again: they've all had orchiectomies!

[INJones]

12:17 AM on 09/25/2010

Mutiny is a conspiracy among members of a group of similarly-situated individuals (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change or overthrow an authority to which they are subject. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s).

But in this case,it is clearly the GOP against the USA (the ship) and their bosses (constituents) that hired them,the MOP "The Mutiny towards Obama Party".

[AtheistMaximus]

11:48 AM on 09/24/2010

Republican obstruction continues. The question I want answered which no Rightie has yet to answer. If they regain control of House or Senate what will they do? Their play book hasn't changed one iota since the 80's. Those policies have proven to fail, I'm all for bi-partisanship and all, but to push old policies that are detrimental to our country is ridiculous. C'mon Republican voters, this country is all of ours, whether you like liberals or not. We are not going anywhere. Stalling the legislative process or freezing Govt. entirely is not the answer. This will harm your well being too.

[wdw505]

11:51 AM on 09/24/2010

it will harm me less than allowing liberal policies to go into play......gridlock is good for now

[tpaige1967]

01:23 PM on 09/24/2010

You mean like not being kicked off your insurance policy if you or your kids get sick?

[wdw505]

12:14 PM on 09/24/2010

AtheistMaximus

one example is the ledbetter law

i can think of 2 women working for me that get about 85% of their counterparts that are male.......sounds bad on paper.......but the males do almost 2 times the output in units as the women do.......with almost the same failure rate......now i will have to pay equally that is not fair to my company......for a hard working role i would have to not hire women......i start everyone in that role at the same rate......based on through put and failure rate they get raises.......over a 12 hour day the weight of the work load reduces the females output by the end of the day the women are down by 40% vs the start of their day. while the men loose 17% on average....i will have to discriminate for pure financial reasons......I'm not disputing this job is very hard and hot a the summer with heavy lifting even with a machine assist........I did the job for a few hours just to see what was involved a couple years ago.....i will admit it kicked my butt......
but he will get equal pay for them though......

[AtheistMaximus]

01:22 PM on 09/24/2010

If you've hired bad employees, that's on you. The ledbetter act merely states. A woman can not be discriminated for being a woman, meaning lower wages for the same job. Nowhere does it state you must keep them on if they perform their job poorly. Nor does it state that you can not give a raise to a man for performing highly at his job. If both were equal workers performing at the same rate and the same job and you paid the male more, then yes that would be a violation. I believe you have misinterpreted this act, and should revise it further. For the sake of alleviating yourself of under performers. Good luck to you.

[quintus]

11:47 AM on 09/24/2010

Dems "threatening" retaliation? That's it? They're "threatening" to act? So typical. No actopn, no backbone. Paralyzed by fear.

[wdw505]

11:52 AM on 09/24/2010

laughing......sounds good

[INJones]

12:24 AM on 09/25/2010

Mutiny is a conspiracy among members of a group of similarly-situated individuals (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change or overthrow an authority to which they are subject. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s).

But in this case,it is clearly the GOP against the USA (the ship) and their bosses (constituents) that hired them,the MOP "The Mutiny towards Obama Party".

[Left of Center]

11:47 AM on 09/24/2010

When's the next congressional recess so we can make some additional appointments? These rethugs aren't going to give an inch, period!

[King Keith]

11:44 AM on 09/24/2010

If the Democrats really would like to retalitate they should start supporting congressional candidates and running more ads on TV and actually use their majority to get some legislation passed and stop acting like a bunch of little kids.

[trobts]

11:38 AM on 09/24/2010

I dream of a day when Rethuglican'ts become extinct. Let's do it in NOVEMBER.

[whiteconch]

11:51 AM on 09/24/2010

Even Eisenhower knew of the threat that over-capitolistic greed by gop leads to demise of society,..it's called the threat of the "Iron Cross" in his speech of 1953. Take the money of one b om b and put it to use buying one school.
Obama,..STAY STRONG!!!!!!

[kasinca]

11:29 AM on 09/24/2010

Be patriotic! Fire a republicon on election day. Cancel a teabagger ballot.

Vote Democratic all the way!

[unitarianuniversalist]

11:28 AM on 09/24/2010

I won't hold my breath about the "retaliation" by Democrats. I want them to get some BALLS and actually force these Republicans' hands!

[indabush]

11:24 AM on 09/24/2010

This is why I like certain parts of the British system - the government governs, let the opposition sit and complain in parliament. DEMOCRATS, grow some, will ya? This bi-partisan crapola is sickening - the rethugs have no intention of making any thing you do successful, so what's the use of discussing anything with them? Those of you on committees, sit amongst yourselves, develop your plans to move America forward, plot the strategy, bring it on the floor for approval from your fellow Democrats, pass it on to the President for signature, implement the program. PERIOD. These people are NOT going to help you - when are you congressmen and women going to learn that? This comity thing is a relic of the past - just like the cold war. Run over them, they're in the way of progressive movement. Take no prisoners! Americans love people with balls, not marshmallows parading as such. Good Lord!