SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (143691)6/14/2014 8:18:17 PM
From: koan  Respond to of 149317
 


I think this ME stuff is so complicated, it is beyond we mere mortals ability to understand it. The only people who think it is simple are people who think simplistically.. But then they are almost always wrong.

When I am trying to figure out something too complicated to know for sure, I look for different ways to answer the questions. E.g. take diet. a million theories, so I decided instead to look and see who was living the longest and eat what they eat-lol.

ME: Let's take what we are pretty sure of and build on that. This by and large is a sectarian war. Iraq should not even exist. Everyone will be much better off if they divide Iraq into three states. Kurds to the north, Shia to the south and Sunni to the west. Sunni's have no oil in the west though.

The oil is in the north and south; but the tribal continuity helps keep peace. Syria should also probably be broken up with the eastern Sunni in Syria joining the western Sunni in Iraq. And so on and so forth

Addressing all of the sectarian stuff and global dynamics is ten times more important than worrying about friggen terrorists. If I hear that word one more time I will wretch.

The are all just different types of 13 century people acting like 13th century people act with big powers behind the scene. That is what Obama is looking at I hope.

That is the reality we should be addressing.

Bush did not understand any of that when he invaded.



To: koan who wrote (143691)6/15/2014 12:35:26 AM
From: i-node  Respond to of 149317
 
>> She is the expert.

She does not appear to be. From her column:

"Chemerinsky fully voices the fears of all of us who have watched the court slowly erode abortion, employee, environmental, and voting rights in the past decade. For instance: “There are, for example, four likely votes to overturn Roe v. Wade on the current court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. If a Republican president selects Ginsburg’s replacement, that justice easily could be the fifth vote needed to allow the government to prohibit all abortions.”

John Roberts has, repeatedly and with some frequency, stated clearly that Roe v. Wade is "settled law" and has even used the phrase "beyond settled." Not one instance exists where he has indicated otherwise, although he has while representing clients taken the opposition position. Which is, after all, what lawyers are hired to do.

It appears her expertise is limited to making claims that bolster her personal point of view, even when unfounded. "Expert" is a pretty gross exaggeration.



To: koan who wrote (143691)6/15/2014 12:54:56 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
He is nominating liberal judges, just not a lot of them and he is also nominating a lot of moderate and right wing judges.

It seems there is a problem with Mathew Boggs..........he's the only judge appointee by Obama that may be considered conservative. However, there is a complicated reason for why Boggs got nominated and the fault lies more with the Dem Senator Leahy:

For the last five years, a combination of Republican obstruction and White House neglect has left the federal judiciary with a record number of vacancies. With the end of the filibuster on judicial nominees other than Supreme Court judges, however, one part of the problem was solved: Republicans had fewer avenues for hindering the process. But there were still obstacles, and at least one of them was built by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy.

Under his tenure, the Judiciary Committee has made unusual use of the blue-slip, a Senate tradition that, in Leahy’s words, allows the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman to “solicit views of home state senators when someone is nominated to be a judge in their state.” For Leahy, a negative blue-slip means the nominee is verboten, even if the other senator has given her consent to the nomination. And in that way, it’s become a wide backdoor for Republican obstruction.

It should be said that, in its original use, the blue-slip was a simple note on the acceptability of the nominee. But, as traditions are wont to do, its role changed with the circumstances. Under Mississippi Sen. James Eastland, for example, it became a tool for Southern Democrats desperate to keep pro-Brown judges from the courts. Indeed, during Eastland’s tenure as committee chairman any blue-slip in opposition to a nominee was an automatic veto.

After Eastland’s retirement in 1978, subsequent chairs abandoned the practice of an automatic veto, giving weight to the blue-slip—“one negative blue-slip would be ‘a significant factor to be weighed,’ ” said then-Sen. Joe Biden when he led the committee—but treating it as a recommendation, not a final judgment. Still, the general practice was that one positive blue-slip was needed for a nominee to move forward.

That changed in 1995 when Republicans took the Senate. Eager to stymie the Clinton administration, Republicans required two blue-slips for a nominee to go forward, which made it easier to kill Clinton’s nominees. With the election of George W. Bush, however, Republicans reverted to the one-slip rule, in order to expedite the process. It flipped again in 2001 after Sen. Jim Jeffords defected from the GOP caucus, giving Democrats control of the Senate, and then again in 2003, when Republicans won the chamber and announced a zero blue-slip rule, allowing hearings on nominees even if there wasn’t a note in favor of the candidate.



It’s in response to this that Leahy restored the two blue-slip rule when Democrats took the Senate in 2006 and he became chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Yes, the single-senator veto slows the pace of nominations, but, he argues, it’s more consistent than the haphazard approach of the past.



The problem, of course, is that it empowers Republican obstruction and gives substantial leverage to GOP senators, hence the nomination of Michael Boggs. In return for nominating Judge Julie Carnes to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and giving Boggs (and two other Republican-picked attorneys) a place on the Northern District Court of Georgia, Sens. Chambliss and Isakson would end a more than two-year hold on Jill Pryor’s nomination to the 11th Circuit.



Even with Boggs’ admirable work on Georgia’s Special Council for Criminal Justice Reform, this is a terrible deal. If it goes through, Republicans get four lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary, putting a stamp on the courts at a time when Obama should have the prerogative.



And while I admire Sen. Leahy’s commitment to the blue-slip rule and Senate tradition, I have to wonder if he’s just ignored the last five years of Republican radicalism. Simply put, there’s a strong chance that, if they take the Senate and the presidency, Republicans would abandon Leahy’s approach and return to the zero blue-slip rule, to facilitate the confirmation of Republican judges.



Which gets to why the Boggs nomination matters. It’s not just a slap in the face to Obama’s liberal supporters; it’s illustrative of the president’s nearly casual approach to the courts. On health care, climate change, and other concerns, Obama might win the policy fight, but he’ll need friendly judges to defend his accomplishments from conservative lawsuits and an organized right-wing opposition. But by nominating conservatives, he’s moving in the opposite direction.


Top Comment


So, for those conservatives who know the difference between partisan and ideological, name for me one instance of Obama being an ideological liberal. Just one. More...

It’s true that the president has recently improved his performance with nominations. But vacancies are still high, and there’s a good chance that the Republicans will win the Senate this year, ending any effort to fill them.


To secure his legacy, President Obama needs to act now, and make as many nominations as possible. And to that he’ll need Senate Democrats to shift gears on blue-slips and abandon the single-senator veto. Yes, tradition is important, but for a liberal presidency, it’s not nearly as important as ending the right’s three-decade dominance of the courts.


slate.com