11–20 of 58 posts
This is a poor decision - the party in power will be able to appoint extremists. This may be temporary pleasing, but at some point the other party will be in power, with the net result that the judiciary will be filled judges of less moderation and more politics.
The current situation is that the party in power doesn't get to appoint anyone. What good is power then?
If we continue to see blanket obstructionism on legislation, I expect to see the filibuster limited there too (or made more difficult). That is when the cannonballs will start flying.
The argument for not appointing any more appeals judges was that the caseload was light enough, that no more were needed. In my opinion, it was right for the Senate to give up a little power here. They should be exercising more oversight powers in other areas.
The Senate is giving up NO power. The Senate is deciding to act democratically now, on a simply majority vote, instead of being hobbled by a super-minority, and only for presidential nominations. Truly inappropriate nominations (ie, Harriet Myers) can still be blocked by majority vote. The entire filibuster was never laid out in the constitution, it's a convention adopted by the Senate itself and was used ruthlessly…
This is a poor decision - the party in power will be able to appoint extremists. This may be temporary pleasing, but at some point the other party will be in power, with the net result that the judiciary will be filled judges of less moderation and more politics.
Seeing very large numbers of cases has a tendency to change political and ideological views over times. The appointees they get are vetted in various ways to at least be qualified at the law, even if they have strong ideologies. Now, certainly, "true believers" aren't going to change, but ...
Plus, the federal judiciary doesn't pay well (relatively speaking), so unless they strongly care about deciding hundreds of random crappy cases, they often leave for greener pastures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current situation is that the party in power doesn't get to appoint anyone. What good is power then?
I would choose that over the alternative.
A number of circuits are having to pull judges from other circuits in order to decide cases ...
What's stopping the Senate from reverting back to the old rules just before the next Senate/Presidential elections?
The argument for not appointing any more appeals judges was that the caseload was light enough, that no more were needed. In my opinion, it was right for the Senate to give up a little power here. They should be exercising more oversight powers in other areas.
This is of course, completely and totally false. One only needs to look at the stats to see that, depending on circuit, they end up with something like 3 new appeals per day on the low side, and 40 new appeals per day on the high side.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics...
Given the amount of time and effort it takes to decide a single appeal, the caseload is not "light" by any stretch of the imagination.
Pendency is huge (even though very slowly decreasing on average)
These stats also don't count the time it actually takes to hear argument on cases, etc. Just the number of filings.
What's stopping the Senate from reverting back to the old rules just before the next Senate/Presidential elections?
But since it was done, it'll be easier to repeat it in the future. Which was why most wanted to avoid doing it over the years.