Progressives Urge Senate Dems to Ditch Tradition That's Allowing GOP to Veto Biden Judges

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

"Senate Democrats should eliminate every barrier possible" to confirm President Joe Biden's judicial nominees, said Indivisible.

With Democrats hoping to confirm dozens more federal judges following President Joe Biden's milestone of appointing 100 new members of the judiciary, progressives on Friday said the party has no choice but to eliminate a tradition they say has been exploited by Republicans to block the president's nominees.

Advocacy group Alliance for Justice said Democratic leaders, particularly Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) must make a choice: They can "transform our federal courts by confirming so many more judges with a respect for the rights of all of us," or they can allow Republicans to continue the tradition of using so-called "blue slips" to reject nominees.

The Senate "can't do both," said the group.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/progressives-urge-senate-dems-to-ditch-tradition-that-s-allowing-gop-to-veto-biden-judges/ar-AA17UWnc

[usonian]

1. And the repubs were so open to Dems blocking their theocratic ideologues to the SC. (NOT)

[themaguffin]

2. Hatch dropped the "tradition" under W.

[tritsofme]

6. Republicans dropped it for circuit nominees during Trump

Now Democrats are being encouraged to drop blue slips for district nominees.

After such a productive first two years, that’s where the vacancies will be going forward.

[republianmushroom]

3. agree

[W_HAMILTON]

4. Have these progressives run their idea by Manchin and Sinema?

No? Then it doesn't matter.

PS - You know what could have also "transform(ed) our federal courts by confirming so many more judges with a respect for the rights of all of us?" Voting for the candidate running on "the most progressive platform" in party history rather than constantly shitting on her and enabling Trump and his Republicans to transform the federal courts to begin with.

[tritsofme]

7. Neither sit on the Judiciary Committee, the decision belongs to Durbin.

[W_HAMILTON]

9. Wrong, because...

...what then happens if you eliminate the blue slip, a judge goes the Senate floor, s/he is voted down, in part, because you can't get Manchin and Sinema on board, then you don't get the judge confirmed, and Republicans point to this as justification for eliminating the blue slip and ram through even more extremist right-wing judges when they eventually take back the Senate.

[tritsofme]

11. Have either made such a threat? Manchin and Sinema have been very good on judges.

I think this concern is unfounded.

Moving away from blue slips for district nominees is not a major rules change like eliminating the filibuster, it is something that is entirely at the discretion of the Judiciary Chairman.

[W_HAMILTON]

13. They're "good on judges" because we haven't resorted to this tactic yet.

You honestly think DURBIN is the one preventing this and not him realizing that he can't count on Manchin/Sinema to actually vote for the nominations that do make it to the floor once this strategy is employed? When has he ever been an obstructionist in this manner?

And, yes, it is a major change, and one that would serve absolutely no purpose if it were eliminated, but then the nominee can't get approved because all Republicans and Manchin/Sinema vote against them due to them being put up for a vote by this tactic.

I'm sure that Durbin knows about the underlying situation much better than anyone else, and I have no doubt that if he were sure that he could actually see a nominee through the ENTIRE confirmation and had enough votes to get them voted in, he would gladly do away with this so-called tradition.

[orleans]

15. oh please -- you're making a assumptions about manchin / sinema

you don't know how they would vote on any particular judge

and durbin isn't psychic and can't predict all their votes either

the blue slip is a stupid tradition -- it's not a law, it's not a rule and he needs to get rid of it

and yes, it is up to durbin. and he's not living his life as judiciary chair based on manchin or sinema in part because he's not that dumb!

sounds like you don't understand the blue slip process.
google it

[W_HAMILTON]

16. Durbin knows the politics of it.

And if you are banking on Manchin/Sinema going along with it, it's not me that doesn't understand how things work.

Eliminating the blue slip process in committee, only to watch their nomination fail on the floor because Manchin/Sinema won't vote for it because it didn't go through "proper order" and was railroaded through by eliminating one of their time-honored Senate traditions like the filibuster serves no purpose whatsoever and does absolutely no good -- and, in fact, it only hurts us because Republicans will certainly point to it as justification for eliminating the tradition on their watch and they will actually get their nominees confirmed because they are all pretty much lockstep when it comes to these sorts of things.

When you show me that Manchin and Sinema are all for voting for nominees that go up for a floor vote if they can only make it there after eliminating the blue slip tradition, I'll gladly join in crucifying Durbin for being the one preventing this from happening. But unlike Manchin and Sinema, Durbin has shown no deep regard for these sorts of outdated traditions and I have no doubt that the reason he isn't doing away with it because he knows that he can't count on Manchin and Sinema to vote for the eventual nominee.

[orleans]

19. nope nope nope

again, your assumption is that m & s will vote against judges if blue slips aren't being used, and as long as the blue slips are used they will vote for the judges

you do not know this for certain. this is your assumption. there is no absolute or guarantee that m&s will do what you claim they will.

republicans didn't use blue slips during trump era 18 times (according to thom hartmann) so let them fucking complain if we don't use blue slips. they complain and bitch about dems anyway. big deal. i do the same about the fucking republicans.

[W_HAMILTON]

21. Then feel free to send a message to their office and ask them to comment publicly on it.

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2023, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Neither of us know for certain how Manchin/Sinema will react, but you can bet Durbin does.

EDIT: I did send a message to Manchin after I posted this, but it appears he may not respond to out-of-state residents, so I will let everyone know if I receive a response...

[tritsofme]

17. I'm not being at all critical of Durbin's strategy.

I think you are reading it wrong.

The situation has not yet come to a head, Biden has not really been focusing on nominating district judges where there are two Republican senators. Now, as we fill all of the circuit seats and easy district ones, attention will turn to blue slips, and there will be a confrontation. I really don’t anticipate Manchin or Sinema being a major roadblock to this change.

[Celerity]

12. Did you even do a minimal amount of backgrounding on this group before you started

blaming them for Clinton's loss? It appears you just saw the word 'progressive' and had a go.

Many in this org's umbrella group endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016, for example Planned Parenthood, National Education Association, NARAL, Human Rights Campaign, Sierra Club, Southern Poverty Law Center, Tides Center, United Farm Workers of America, League of Conservation Voters, etc.

Alliance for Justice helped lead the fight against many RW SCOTUS nominees, including Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, etc.

Alliance for Justice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Justice

Alliance for Justice (AFJ) is a progressive judicial advocacy group in the United States. Founded in 1979 by former president Nan Aron, AFJ monitors federal judicial appointments. AFJ represents a coalition of 100 politically leftist groups that have an interest in the federal judiciary. The Alliance for Justice presents a modern liberal viewpoint on legal issues. According to the organization, "AFJ works to ensure that the federal judiciary advances core constitutional values, preserves human rights and unfettered access to the courts, and adheres to the even-handed administration of justice for all Americans."

Judicial advocacy

AFJ launched the Judicial Selection Project in 1985 to monitor the federal judicial appointment system. According to AFJ's founder, Nan Aron, the organization wanted to guard against the ideological impact of Ronald Reagan's federal judicial nominees. AFJ objects to judicial nominees who oppose abortion or who promise to exercise judicial restraint. The organization provides background on prospective nominees to the American Bar Association and the Senate Judiciary Committee. AFJ played a role in the defeat of Ronald Reagan nominee Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. In 2001, the organization supported the nomination of Roger Gregory, a Bill Clinton nominee and the first African-American judge in the Fourth Circuit in 2001. In 2013, AFJ supported President Barack Obama's three nominees for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Member organizations

Abortion Care Network
Advancement Project
Advocates for Youth
AIDS United
Alliance for Safe Traffic Stops
Alliance for the Great Lakes
Alliance for Youth Organizing
Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action
Beneficial State Foundation
Business and Professional People for the Public Interest
California Women's Law Center
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Constitutional Rights
Center for Digital Democracy
Center for Inquiry
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Children's Defense Fund
Clearinghouse on Women's Issues
Closing the Women's Wealth Gap
Community Catalyst
Community Partners
Compassion & Choices
Comprehensive Health Education Foundation
Conservation Campaign
Consumer Action
Culture Project
Dallas Women's Foundation
Defending Rights & Dissent
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Dream Corps
Drug Policy Alliance
Earthjustice
Equal Justice Society
Equal Rights Advocates
Equality Federation
Every Child Matters
Faith in Action Network
Food Research & Action Center
Forests Forever
Free Press
Friends of the Earth
Great Plains Action Society
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
Houston in Action
Human Rights Campaign Foundation
International Center for Research on Women
Jewish Social Justice Roundtable
Jobs with Justice
Justice in Aging
Juvenile Law Center
Lambda Legal
Latino Community Foundation
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
League of Conservation Voters Education Fund
Legal Aid Association of California
Legal Aid at Work
Little Lobbyists
Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy
MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger
Methodist Healthcare Ministries
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Mi Familia Vota
Muslim Advocates
NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation
National Abortion Federation
National Association of Consumer Advocates
National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Center for Law and Economic Justice
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Center for Youth Law
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy
National Council of Jewish Women
National Education Association
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Immigration Forum
National Immigration Law Center
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty
National Lawyers Guild
National Legal Aid & Defender Association
National LGBTQ Task Force
National Parks Conservation Association
National Partnership for Women and Families
National Veterans Legal Services Program
National Women's Law Center
Native American Rights Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
North Texas Dream Team
Peak Grantmaking
People's Action
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
PolicyLink
Public Advocates
RAICES
Rockefeller Philanthropies Advisors
Secular Coalition for America
Secular Woman
Service Employees International Union
Shriver Center on Poverty Law
SIECUS
Sierra Club Foundation
Southern California Grantmakers
Southern Poverty Law Center
States United to Prevent Gun Violence
Texas Council on Family Violence
Texas Women's Foundation
The Arc
The Climate Project
The Impact Fund
Tides Center
Transgender Law Center
UFW Foundation
Violence Policy Center
Younger Women's Task Force, Greater Lafayette Chapter
YWCA

[W_HAMILTON]

14. If every so-called progressive supported and voted for Hillary, she would have been president.

And I say this as a progressive, but certainly not of the Susan Sarandon/Jill Stein/Green Party/Republican-enabling sort.

[Celerity]

18. non sequitur nt

[betsuni]

20. Yes. The word "progressive" was given a new definition and denied to Democrats.

Too many people believed it and for them "'progressive' wasn't an ill-defined, historically malleable label, but rather a badge of honor, a magical talisman for those who considered themselves 'anti-establishment.' ... When ... denied that badge of honor to Hillary he wasn't distinguishing his agenda from hers (their positions on most issues were, in reality, pretty similar), he was excluding her from the company of the good and pure -- and in the process limiting what counted as 'progressive' causes, too. ... Portraying Clinton as the enemy of systemic change ... was not only factually incorrect, but proved politically disastrous in the general election."

Susan Bordo

Disastrous for the general election. Deliberately factually incorrect, total BS.

[W_HAMILTON]

22. Yep. And we know that Republicans and Russians were all too happy to further that terrible message.

And I think it will have damaged an entire generation of voters, even though at least many of them have changed their tune somewhat after realizing how terrible Trump was and realizing that all the lies they were told about how Trump and Hillary were the same was a big pile of bullshit.

[betsuni]

23. Agree. I've found few sources discussing its impact but thankfully it's

running out of steam (and money) and Biden has been masterful at taming populists (as would Hillary if she'd been president, but she said she felt like she was in a straitjacket because of the advice she was given: you were right, Hillary).

Republicans, on the other hand, are really getting into the right-wing populist anti-establishment we're-the-true-champions-of-the-white-working class-because-Democrats-are-racist-elitists thing. Trump really lucked into that racism pretending to be economic anxiety myth in 2016 and now it's all over the place (some other populists STILL don't understand that racism is the reason people vote for Republicans, not because Democrats ignore the white working class, which is mind-boggling).

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. The blue slip needs to go

[In It to Win It]

8. I strongly doubt Dick Durbin would do it

A lot of those red state vacancies will remain vacant if they don't scrap it. Those courts will forever be stacked with religious ideologues and batshit crazy zealots, like Matthew Kacsmaryk, Drew Tipton and Reed O'Connor.

[W_HAMILTON]

10. Durbin would gladly do it, if in doing so, he had enough votes to actually confirm the judges...

...that were put up for a vote via this strategy.

And as long as we are relying on Manchin/Sinema to hit the 50-vote threshold, you can guarantee that they will not vote for judges that are put up for a vote after getting through by abandoning this so-called tradition, just like they both refused to eliminate the filibuster.