Submitted by Guest Blogger, Lawrence Rafferty
After a wonderful Christmas weekend spent with my family and my two Grandsons, and after celebrating the Bears victory over the Jets, it is time to get back to work. I was not surprised to read that the Republican minority in the United States Senate have been trying to prevent President Obama’s nominations for the Federal Judiciary from receiving a vote on the Senate floor. However, I was shocked to see the extent of the intentional obstruction. The Obama Administration has the lowest judicial confirmation record since before the Carter administration. Almost one of every nine judicial judgeships is currently without a Federal judge on the bench. How could a minority in the Senate derail the nominations of so many judges to the Federal bench?
Between secret Senatorial holds and the Republican’s favorite obstruction tool, the filibuster, the Republican minority in the Senate has blocked so many nominees from getting a vote on the Senate floor that they have created a vacancy crisis in the Federal Judiciary. “Notably, three of these vacancies are on just one court. Of the four active judgeships on the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, three are presently vacant, leaving the court’s chief judge as its only active member. Two of President Obama’s nominees to this court, James Shadid and Sue Myerscough, were unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee for this excessively overburdened court. Yet none of Obama’s nominees to the Central District of Illinois received a vote in the 111th Congress.” http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/25/judgeships-vacant/ Why would the Republicans want to prevent even non-controversial judges from being confirmed? They are attempting to keep Democratic leaning judges from being sworn into positions where Republican issues can be thwarted or struck down by what they call “activist” judges. Of course, an activist judge is in the eye of the beholder. The Republicans do not care about the Federal Districts being overwhelmed with cases due to the vacancies. It seems obvious that they only care about having judges in place who will rule as they want them to rule. Even if their plan brings the nation’s Federal judiciary to a grinding halt. Is it time to end or limit the filibuster and the secret holds in the Senate?
I think that whenever law is discussed the Rules of Evidence should be followed including the restrictions on introduction of character evidence.
Lottakatz:
What is name calling? Telling a lie? If so, since I am not lying it cannot be name calling.
We have named everything on the planet from atoms and molecules to mountains. We have named all flowers, and birds. And we have even named theories, laws, philosophies, and beliefs. How is it, just because you are cranky, teed-off, or some other such petty disagreeableness, that we should hesitate to name ideas and attach them to the people who promote them? Isn’t that a tad unscientific? Isn’t that to obscure the truth? Muddy the waters? Deny transparency?
What is it you hope to hide by your strange denial that human beliefs ought not to be attached to the persons who believe them? Or that human conduct shouldn’t be attached to the people who act them out? What truth do you wish buried? What evil do you wish to cover-up in unspoken truths?
To call a capitalist a capitalist is name calling? To call a Marxist a Marxist is name calling?
Isn’t that kinda of anti-intellectual thinking?
You sound like a Pope of old who wouldn’t let others declare their own version of truth without their permission.
You basically named-called me a name-caller.
Chastise yourself please.
Well we are certainly not talking a transparent process.
I complained to OPC that a US assistant attorney, Robert Anderson, appeared in federal court where the US Marshals brought me in chains, and knowing there were no state or federal charges against me, said “the government is not a part of this” but then said he had no objections to my continued imprisonment without an arraignment or bail hearing. I wrote it up and sent it in with a transcript but OPC didn’t even acknowledge what I wrote.
I just don’t understand everyone’s assumption that just because we live in the USA they will not be kidnapped or killed by government forces.
I always thought of myself as sort of main stream, not radical, and I never ever expected to be kidnapped by my government and held without charges based solely on a motion in a civil hearing that I should be indefinitely imprisoned until I did what they want.
Recently I realized that when I was imprisoned in Western Wisconsin at the order of USMS there are no Automated Booking System or Prisoner Tracking System records. I was held at USMS request in a state jail under contract w USMS (I don’t have a criminal record). I was supposed to be taken to Colorado by USMS. I was transferred back and forth from custody by the locals to USMS 5 times without USMS creating PTS records probably because they didn’t want to enter an offense code. On other papers I was classified by USMS as a high security prisoner. They brought me three times to O’Hare airport where I was supposed to take Con-Air with violent federal prisoners. The only reason that didn’t happen was that the plane broke (I think they couldn’t get prisoners on it because of defects with the loading equipment). So what I am wondering in retrospect was whether the plan was for me to be “accidentally” murdered by violent USMS prisoners.
This is propaganda. Here’s the big picture which is missing from the post. When Obama wants something done in Congress, it gets done. When he does not want it done but wants it to look like he does, “gridlock” magically appears on cue. For example, he wanted his supporters to believe he was all for appointing Dawn Johnsen to the OLC. He strangely “missed” several opportunities to recess appoint her, something GWB would have done in an heartbeat. Then, after failing to give her a recess appointment, he claimed Republicans just obstructed him at every turn and there was nothing he could do but to cut her loose. This was a strategy, not a mistake. His supporters easily bought this storyline, even though it didn’t really make sense. In the meantime, he got rid of an appointee whom he never wanted in the first place.
There is a strategy to this action as well. As one Congressmember said, everything here is staged. The Obama administration uses the courts for its own purposes. They are almost completely politicized except for some left overs from prior administrations. Obama and Republicans work together (also as wikileaks has shown) to accomplish goals. They are not in opposition to each other, they are on the same team. Blog posts like this obscure not only this fact, but a host of malfeasance by the administration, while supporters worry desperately about how those mean Republicans are always standing in the way of Obama, when in fact, Obama easily accomplishes anything he wants with their help.
One thing I don’t understand and which has been an issue for me has to do with the form of judgments. For instance, an injunction is supposed to be defined by Rule 65. How can they claim there is an injunction if it didn’t start with a bond (except when government is the petitioner), a motion with a statutory basis, a hearing and a court order that doesn’t incorporate another document or complaint.
In my miserable experience there were none of the above yet it is claimed that there is an injunction.
Similarly, it is claimed that I violated Rule 11 but there were no rule 11 motion hearings, no rule 11 c 6 orders and attorney fee shifting was awarded without even a rule 11 motion and without even the law firm filing a document.
Former judge Nottingham dismissed my D of Colorado 02-cv-1950 case without a memorandum opinion or a trial (see document 455) and PACER and the 10th Circuit accepted that.
I think that the ECF designers could easily build into the system requirements for judgments that would force the judges to link to these required elements.
I don’t understand why no one even discusses this. I don’t think this is a partisan issue either. It is more like do we as a country want to enable corruption or do we want to stop corruption?
kay,
that is the best evidence of the intentional obstruction by the Teapublicans.
@rafflaw
I didn’t know that and I don’t understand it at all.
Lottakatz,
Thanks for the link to the Ezra Klein article. The solution to the problem is not a difficult one.
Kay,
It is amazing that we can’t get bipartisan cooperation when it comes to judges that are passed unanimously in committee and in one case a judge that was nominated by George W. Bush and renominated by Obama can’t get voted on!
Look at how difficult it is AT THIS TIME to rely on the Rule of Law for things we all agree are important and necessary. For instance:
1.) Products directed at children shouldn’t have lead and other heavy metals in them.
2.) Insurance companies should save premiums for later claims.
3.) Zoning for compatible uses and inspection of buildings for safety should be reliable.
4.) Police forces shouldn’t be engaged in extortion.
5.) Perjury shouldn’t be allowed.
Tooti: “I don’t want an extremely dangerous and seditious Marxist subversive president selecting judges in my beloved America. … Democrats would do it in a New York minute if they had the chance and the will. And they would be praised by their fellow seditious subversives (Democrats).”
——-
You’ve been doing a lot of name calling and praising Jesus/religion in the last several days, what’s up, are you pissed that the 911 first responders bill passed?
You were arguing against it (in your own compassionate christian way) because they’re well enough compensated by their jobs, unions etc (not true btw) and that (I love this one) ‘no one held a gun to their head and made them go down there’.
Feeling a little betrayed by your fellow compassionate christian republicans that helped pass it? Letting that disappointment carry over a bit?
Not engaging, just say’n.
Good article by Ezra Klein on the method for ending the filibuster:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/how_to_end_the_filibuster_with.html
BBB:
All leftists are evil. Many rightists are. Libertarians are utopians.
:o)
Should we be surprised? This snowball has been rolling for decades. It was bound to get big enough to cause a crisis.
Instead of one side blaming the other (Republicans blamed the Democrats for blocking Bush nominees), maybe it’s time for everyone involved to see beyond their own partisan interests. I know judges who lean to the left, and I know judges who lean to the right. That isn’t what makes them a good or bad judge.
What bright and cheery news on this cold wintry day! Better than bling under the tree wrapped in a red bow (no pun intended).
I don’t want an extremely dangerous and seditious Marxist subversive president selecting judges in my beloved America.
Drag those feet sirs!
It is your duty!
It is the check of the balance–glorious balance of powers designed to protect us from despots and tyrants. All thieves, robbers, and worse.
Democrats would do it in a New York minute if they had the chance and the will. And they would be praised by their fellow seditious subversives (Democrats).
All of them.
PT 2
OUCH!!:
” and after celebrating the Bears victory over the Jets,” :=)
Well said Buckeye!
Instead of “First kill all the lawyers” it’s “First never seat a judge”. Either will pull the blindfold from Ms. Justice eyes.
Apparently some people think that lawsuits should be prevented instead of thinking that lawsuits help keep government and business honest.
Yes, end the filibuster. This is an outrageous display of senatorial obstructionism that backlogs the courts and denies fair justice.