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?
anon nurse,
Wonderful links to Sen. Sessions and his war against any judicial nominations from the Dems.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/jeff_sessions_rants_against_judicial_nominees_with_aclu_dna_video.php
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ3fbsix3-Q&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3]
Posted by Suzanne Ito, ACLU
Sen. Sessions is Concerned About “ACLU DNA” in Judicial Nominees
December 22
http://www.aclu.org/blog/organization-news-and-highlights/sen-sessions-concerned-about-aclu-dna-judicial-nominees
kay,
with all due respect, you don’t want an answer unless it is the one that you want to hear.
@rafflaw
People get murdered all the time and are dead even though no one is prosecuted or found guilty. The Feds don’t recognize a right to prosecution and claim that they don’t have the resources to prosecute all the crimes.
What I am asking you is simply whether you think there is a statutory right to have a federal court rule that one is a crime victim even if there is no federal prosecution. I don’t mean suing the criminals for damages, I mean an action against the government simply for recognition as a crime victim.
kay,
Your question was answered. There is no Federal crime unless and until a Federal court finds someone guilty for that alleged crime. Your possible recourse is in civil court if the Feds don’t agree with you that a crime was committed.
Pete,
your video really took me back aways! It was great.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj_jm2J6DWc&fs=1&hl=en_US]
@rafflaw
To be more precise,
Do you think that persons harmed as a result of a federal crime have a right to have a district court rule that they are crime victims even if there is no pending criminal prosecution?
kay,
I didn’t ignore your question. I do think victims of assault have a civil remedy if they are unable to convince the authorities to file criminal charges against the assailant. I think that answers your question.
15 U.S.C. § 1011 : US Code – Section 1011: Declaration of policy
Congress hereby declares that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States.
(b) Federal regulation
No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance: Provided, That after June 30, 1948, the Act of July 2, 1890, as amended, known as the Sherman Act, and the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended, known as the Clayton Act, and the Act of September 26, 1914, known as the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.], shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State Law.
b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall render the said Sherman Act inapplicable to any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation.
Lotta: Only ignorant people don’t know Obama is a Marxist. You should keep it to yourself.
kay: The federal government has no executive or legislative authority to regulate insurance companies. Poking their noses into the insurance business is what caused the inability of companies to offer citizens of other states better rates and has led to the current violation of the Constitution (Obamacare).
Well you know that Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure require federal courts to docket papers but frequently they do not even for paid lawsuits so why would you think that you would receive responses from other branches of government?
One thing about Homeland Security is that it has a Data Integrity Board that actually has meetings and it publishes the minutes of those meetings.
The Department of Justice on the other hand has a Data Integrity Board with assigned members but they don’t have meetings or haven’t for at least five years. DOJ sent me a letter saying so.
This was a great letter written by a person on Common Dreams: “I don’t know. I just sent the following to whitehouse.gov.
—————————–
Dear Mr. Obama
Like many Americans, I have become used to the idea of living in a secretive, fascist, corporate, government instead of a Constitutional Republic, though being in my 70’s I do remember what the United States used to be.
I do feel you should end your charade of Constitutional government.
Perhaps you should be dressing Homeland Security in Black Shirts, or come up with a natty collar symbol like the two lightning strokes that designated the SS.
If you would do this, then everyone would truly understand where we are and what we have become.
Your current program of pretending that We the People have some input and influence in government is just too confusing. Come on, please start being honest. The only people who have any meaningful input to the US Government are the multi-billionaire corporate “individuals” who buy you all, from Congressmen to Senators to Judiciary to Executive and, to whom you give everything that isn’t nailed down or can be pried loose.
Just start being honest in this one thing, that is all we ask.
———————————
I’ve requested an answer. Who knows?”
Do you think there should be federal regulation of insurance companies?
Lottakatz,
First let me say I do think people projected themselves onto Obama– their best selves. To take advantage of people’s desperation and their very best hopes is simply despicable. But that is what a cult brander understand how to do and that’s what they did. Everyone who cared about our nation and the world was so incredibly desperate for things to turn around. People didn’t want endless war, torture, mass starvation/joblessness. They did want real health care and I think, many people voted for Obama because they wanted racial justice in America. The public who wanted all these good things, was utterly betrayed. But, the American public did want these things (which means we can want them again!). Had we not been betrayed we would have been a much better people. As we were betrayed certain very bad aspects of people’s character came to the fore.
I also do not think Obama is an economic centrist. You can’t put Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in charge of your team and be a centrist. No way would you have crafted the financial bail out or the health care bill or intend to gut social security as a centrist. That is the work of someone on the far right. Obama has an agenda on the economic front and it’s not a good one anymore than his foreign policy is helpful to humankind. He’s fought very hard, threatening Congress members to vote his way or else on economic issues such as the bailout. He hasn’t just made easy compromises, he’s gone to bat for his actual constituency, the top 1% of our nation.
So I think the whole mess has been disgusting and horrifying. I’m just hoping we aren’t too late to pick ourselves up and restore those very good things so many people did hope for, only this time for real!
@rafflaw
You ignored my question about the rights of crime victims.
Do you think that the prisoners who were water boarded have a right to a court order finding that they are crime victims even if there is no pending criminal prosecution?
I was a victim of witness intimidation and witness retaliation as defined in 18 USC sections 1512 and 1513 but there is no pending criminal prosecution. Do you think that I have a right to a court order recognizing me as a crime victim?
eniobob, his ruminations are almost painful to listen to. The Senate ain’t what it used to be.
I don’t know how I feel about getting rid of the filibuster entirely but my default position is that it’s subject to abuse by both sides so why not just get rid of it. That’s almost a false equivalency though because it’s taken the neocons/Republicans to turn it into a weapon to subvert the simple-majority vote rule.
It is a subversion of democracy as it (and secret holds) is used. I think it’s a reprehensible state of affairs.
I suspect that some variation of his recommendations will be accepted if there is actually a push to kill the filibuster. I’d like to see the talking filibuster back if doing away with it isn’t in the cards.
Lottakatz,
I agree that Gerald Ford’s pardon was a get out of jail card that may have shown it was OK for future presidents to break the law. I do believe that this case is different because there was no impending impeachment of Bush while in office and no ongoing investigation of the torture regimen when Obama took office. That being said, one of his first actions should have been to investigate the Bush cabal for violation of the US torture laws. It would be even easier now since Bush and Cheney have admitted to waterboarding on several TV shows.