Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Democrats finally broke the filibuster on judicial nominees, and what does this President do? . . . [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)18. "Under the proposed deal..."
<...>
Under the proposed deal, Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) would agree to stop blocking attorney Jill Pryors nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit a nomination that they have effectively held up for well over 1000 days. In return, Obama would nominate a George H.W. Bush-appointed judge Chief Judge Julie Carnes of the Northern District of Georgia to the other open seat on the Eleventh Circuit, creating a fourth vacancy on this federal trial court. Chambliss and Isakson would then be allowed to select three of the four attorneys named to these seats.
At least one precedent suggests that President Obama may regret striking this kind of deal. In 1997, President Clinton named Judge Frank Hull to the Eleventh Circuit as part of a compromise with Republican senators. Fourteen years later, the Eleventh Circuit became the only federal appeals court in the country to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional every other appeals court to consider the question rejected the conservative arguments against the law. Hull provided the key vote to strike the law. While no one can know how the Roberts Court would have behaved if a less conservative judge had instead voted to uphold the law, the Supreme Court would have been much less likely to take this case if federal circuit courts were unanimous in upholding the law.
Additionally, at least one of the district court nominees Chambliss and Isakson are expected to name, attorney Mark Cohen, defended a voter suppression law when he was a lawyer for the State of Georgia. Though an attorneys actions while representing a client do not necessarily reflect their personal views, Senate Republicans used former DC Circuit nominee Caitlin Halligans advocacy in favor of gun laws on behalf of the State of New York as a reason to block her nomination. Now, however, Chambliss and Isakson apparently believe that the White House should ignore Cohens advocacy and nominate him anyway...if the White House agrees to this GOP-friendly bargain, it will likely be because of an absurd Senate practice that gives individual senators veto power over judicial nominees. Under the Senates blue slip rules an anachronistic process that allows senators to veto nominees from their state the state of Georgia is allocated certain seats on the Eleventh Circuit and Chambliss and Isakson have unilateral authority to block any nominees to those seats. Moreover, they are also empowered to block any nominee to a district court in Georgia. Though this process is rooted in a patronage system that no longer exists, Senate Democrats insist upon maintaining it. This Georgia deal could be the result.
Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has the power to prevent this deal from happening, however, and to eliminate Chambliss and Isaksons veto power over Georgia nominees. In 2003, former Judiciary Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT) abandoned the blue slip rule in favor of process that allowed judicial nominations to move forward provided that the Administration [] engaged in pre-nomination consultation with both of the home-state
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617011/white-house-considering-big-cave-republicans-judges/
Under the proposed deal, Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) would agree to stop blocking attorney Jill Pryors nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit a nomination that they have effectively held up for well over 1000 days. In return, Obama would nominate a George H.W. Bush-appointed judge Chief Judge Julie Carnes of the Northern District of Georgia to the other open seat on the Eleventh Circuit, creating a fourth vacancy on this federal trial court. Chambliss and Isakson would then be allowed to select three of the four attorneys named to these seats.
At least one precedent suggests that President Obama may regret striking this kind of deal. In 1997, President Clinton named Judge Frank Hull to the Eleventh Circuit as part of a compromise with Republican senators. Fourteen years later, the Eleventh Circuit became the only federal appeals court in the country to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional every other appeals court to consider the question rejected the conservative arguments against the law. Hull provided the key vote to strike the law. While no one can know how the Roberts Court would have behaved if a less conservative judge had instead voted to uphold the law, the Supreme Court would have been much less likely to take this case if federal circuit courts were unanimous in upholding the law.
Additionally, at least one of the district court nominees Chambliss and Isakson are expected to name, attorney Mark Cohen, defended a voter suppression law when he was a lawyer for the State of Georgia. Though an attorneys actions while representing a client do not necessarily reflect their personal views, Senate Republicans used former DC Circuit nominee Caitlin Halligans advocacy in favor of gun laws on behalf of the State of New York as a reason to block her nomination. Now, however, Chambliss and Isakson apparently believe that the White House should ignore Cohens advocacy and nominate him anyway...if the White House agrees to this GOP-friendly bargain, it will likely be because of an absurd Senate practice that gives individual senators veto power over judicial nominees. Under the Senates blue slip rules an anachronistic process that allows senators to veto nominees from their state the state of Georgia is allocated certain seats on the Eleventh Circuit and Chambliss and Isakson have unilateral authority to block any nominees to those seats. Moreover, they are also empowered to block any nominee to a district court in Georgia. Though this process is rooted in a patronage system that no longer exists, Senate Democrats insist upon maintaining it. This Georgia deal could be the result.
Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has the power to prevent this deal from happening, however, and to eliminate Chambliss and Isaksons veto power over Georgia nominees. In 2003, former Judiciary Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT) abandoned the blue slip rule in favor of process that allowed judicial nominations to move forward provided that the Administration [] engaged in pre-nomination consultation with both of the home-state
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617011/white-house-considering-big-cave-republicans-judges/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Democrats finally broke the filibuster on judicial nominees, and what does this President do? . . . [View all]
markpkessinger
Jan 2014
OP
Google blue slip process. It's still a part of how the senate does business. nt
stevenleser
Jan 2014
#17
So what you're saying is we may as well vote for Republicans? If appointing Republicans is the 'way
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#40
Seems like some folks do not understand how the process of nominating 'District Court' nominees...
Tx4obama
Jan 2014
#57
As I posted in another thread someone started trying to trash Obama for this>>>
KittyWampus
Jan 2014
#3
It is at the 'Senate Judiciary Committee' level of the process when some Senators refuse to ...
Tx4obama
Jan 2014
#64
he is completely entitled to voice his displeasure. It's understandable. Doesn't change reality.
KittyWampus
Jan 2014
#58
So it's pointless to elect Democrats then? I remember the urging to 'vote even for Blue Dogs
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#42
See Comment #47 re 'District Court' nominees - they're picked differently than Appeals Court & ...
Tx4obama
Jan 2014
#50
The president picked his nominees. As we expect a president to do. Sen. Leahy has the power to stop
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#55
My comment/explanation was in regarding to DISTRICT COURT judges in 'red' states
Tx4obama
Jan 2014
#56
In order to have more Democratic 'District Court' judges there needs to be a Dem U.S Senator...
Tx4obama
Jan 2014
#62
I'm utterly speechless and feel America has been kicked in the groin considering seven times
indepat
Jan 2014
#7
He isnt evil, that's absurd. He just has a propensity to appoint Republicans. Who knew? nm
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#36
Republican states get GOP District Court judges, nothing new here. See Comment #47
Tx4obama
Jan 2014
#51
I didn't even know that a president could just abdicate the duty of choosing judges
Doctor_J
Jan 2014
#22
He also nominated Souter to the Supreme Court, maybe things aren't exactly the same.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2014
#33
Do be sure to inform Rep. John Lewis that his outrage is 'faux,' won't you? n/t
markpkessinger
Jan 2014
#63
Not at all. You and a great many others, myself included, foolishly believed what he said.
Egalitarian Thug
Jan 2014
#39
It's the two U.S. Senators from each state that sends the President a list of names to pick from...
Tx4obama
Jan 2014
#47
Btw, there currently are NO pending District Court nominees. Senate sent ALL back to WH on Dec 20th
Tx4obama
Jan 2014
#59
Was the reaction "Nonsense, I can't believe that!" or was it "Crap, not again!"
Demo_Chris
Jan 2014
#75
"This time, I'm sure Republicans will *finally* realize that I'm a man they can do business with..."
MannyGoldstein
Jan 2014
#79