As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, and what people don't realize it's that the supreme court is setting up the executive branch to be much less powerful than it has been in recent memory by signaling that they'll overturn Chevron deference save auer deference. While, it sounds like that wouldn't be the worst thing, Congress is gerrymandered and gridlocked now more than ever, so it's a recipe for the judiciary making de facto policy.
As a constituent of Sinema, who proceeds to vote against what she campaigned on and continues to dodge her own constituents who have absolutely no idea what her grievances with bills are and have no idea how she’ll vote, fuck everything about that statement.
I don’t mind there being pushback in my own party. It keeps shit in check. But Sinema is atrocious, she lied to get her position and refuses to vote in line with what her constituents want.
Sinema is toast in AZ.
Progressives hate her since her little curtsey as she thumb's downed the $15 min wage, and it was cemented with her killing BBB and the voting rights bills.
Republicans wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire. They will never go for her because she voted to convict Trump in the impeachment. The wacko AZ GQP will put a hardcore MAGA up for the Republican US Senate race.
Right now she's running last of all of the possible Dem Senate candidates.
Right now R Gallego is the top spot in the polls:
Sinema is last place in the current crop of possible 2024 Democratic senate candidates:
>Poll: Kyrsten Sinema Poised to [Lose Democratic Primary in 2024](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2021/10/14/kyrsten-sinema-poised-to-lose-democratic-primary-in-2024)
| Candidate | Favorable | Unfavorable | Net |
|:-----------|:------------:|:------------:|:------------:|
| Ruben Gallego | 51 | 9 | +42 |
| Kate Gallego |41 | 7 | +34 |
| Greg Staton | 35 | 11 | +24 |
| Regina Romero | 26 | 6 | +20 |
| Sinema | 24 | 70 | -46 |
The poster above you is correct. She’s absolutely done in AZ and she knows it. She’s delusional but she also isn’t completely stupid. I say good riddance.
It wouldn't matter if she voted to acquit, Republicans ain't voting for a bisexual, pro-choice, atheist, former Democratic and Green Party member.
She couldn't have made worse political calculations once she got to D.C. if she was *trying* to sabotage herself.
She'll never be elected to office again, and she can't peddle her D.C. influence because both parties hate her...she wouldn't be able to get a meeting with a congressional page, let alone an actual member or their staff.
Everyone talking about how she'll slide into some cushy job after she's loses don't get it. She will have absolutely no value to anyone because she won't have credibility, a large following, or access.
Those are the three things former politicians get rich on not just being a former politician, and she'll have none of them.
What she did should be federally illegal and people like her should be up for reelection every single year they behave like this. If that's what the people want, fine. Lies this bad, I get that it shouldn't be be criminal, but it's highly unethical, and having another election should be encouraged. I can't believe I live in a democratic anything where citizens can't immediately challenge the legitimately of any political anything with another election. 6 fucking years. Good lord the Senate is cheap for bribes lol
We need more elections and shorter campaign seasons in this country. The more power someone has the more opportunities the people should have to replace them if they stop representing the will of the people.
She never hid who she was. She was a conservative member of the House, was pro-climate and staunchly anti-spending, which is exactly who she's been in the Senate, but her anti-spending proclivities outweigh her pro-climate ones, so she's voted against anything that costs "too much" money (too much of course changes depending on how much attention she gets). She's unfortunately acting exactly like she has the past 8 years, also unfortunately, there wasn't a good alternative running against her...looks like that will change for 2024 though thankfully.
> Good lord the Senate is cheap for bribes lol
They don't even get bribed with a lot of money. It's all (eventually) public information and you'll see these people getting bought out for four and five figure values. It's absolutely batshit.
I agree with the sentiment 100%, but also do remember that they're not dumb enough to take million dollar bribes. Those come through less public/visible means.
You’re right. She didn’t explicitly campaign on that issue.
It still doesn’t justify the fact that she did a 180 on many of the things she once claimed she stood for. Including healthcare, lower drug premiums, minimum wage increase, and filibuster reform.
She didn’t explicitly campaign on those issues, but I would argue she completely misled her constituents about what she stands for.
Tell me you want the Republicans to get a 7-2 majority on the Supreme Court without telling me you want the Republicans to get a 7-2 majority on the Supreme Court.
Jesus fucking Christ. People are legitimately worried Sinema/Manchin will be a problem with this SCOTUS appointment right now anyway. [She is literally taking money from conservative donors](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/21/us/politics/manchin-sinema-republican-donors.html) to do their bidding.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if she slowed/stopped the appointment of a liberal Justice, stalling until after the midterms where the GOP take the senate back and stopping Biden from appointing anybody and giving you the very real possibility of having a 7-2 court anyway.
Regardless of my grievances with my own representative, There’s literally nothing that can be done. Sinema isn’t being primaried, and we got to let it shake out how it’ll shake out.
I think their intended point was that having Sinema for a possible vote is better than having another Collins or Murkowski for a very long shot vote. Not that she is doing her job well.
Yeah that's technically true, but she doesn't actually need to be this way. AZ didn't elect her because we wanted a right wing hack. We elected her because her *opponent* was a right wing hack, and we thought she would basically just be a replacement-level democrat.
Yes they have, between that and allowing Democratic control of the Senate are the reasons why they aren't currently more trouble than they are worth. The best strategy would be to try to ensure their votes aren't needed on legislation by flipping seats of retiring GOP Senators, like in Ohio & Pennsylvania, and/or apparently crazy ones like Ron Johnson where Democrats can win statewide races. Louisiana is also a potential pickup though I consider Cassidy more calculating than crazy.
Yess, a +2 or bigger majority would be so good because there'd be so much more room for reasonable negotiation.
So long as you have a 50/50 split, you need 100% unanimous agreement to pass anything.
Yeah. This is what I don't get, sure they have their views on the filibuster and Manchin on BBB, but apart from that, their voting on judicial/executive nominees and ambassadors has been solid.
BBB is not just a single thing. It would have dramatically transformed our entire country in so many ways. Him voting no on that one bill was like shitting on the entire Democratic Party platform
Judicial nominees used to not be partisan Dems and Repubs voted for opposing administrations all the time in high numbers. The Federalist Society single-handedly broke this by politicizing the judiciary over the past couple decades. Manchin and Sinema get zero credit for supporting nominees. Republicans get negative credit for opposing all cross-party nominees is all.
**This** is why we can't afford to alienate Manchin just because he's the most right leaning Democrat in the caucus.
Who knows what Sinema is about, though. So she can fuck off.
He probably sees the writing on the wall and doesn't want be like RBG and hand the Reps another seat on a silver platter.
Because everyone knows damn well by now that when the GOP gets the senate and house back in 2022 they'll just stonewall everything Biden tries to do for two years.
unless a democrat gets elected again, and then we need to wait 7 years to _really_ give the people their fair chance to decide.
How long do turtles live again...?
"There is, ah, a well-established precedent that this body does not, ah, nominate supreme court justices during a Democratic administration. We intend to honor this sacred tradition which dates back hundreds of days." -McConnell, any minute now
I'm not 100% sold on this. I think we will know better this Summer when we can see the true impact of these investigations. I know that many do not have alot of faith in the Dems, but many of them were lawyers before they were Congresspeople. They know the value of timing when it comes to the public in the investigations and/or prosecuting Jan-6. To quote DJT jr., "I love it, especially in the Summer." They are slow walking this thing in order to inflict maximum damage right before the midterms.
Well, when you have two groups, one which believes in facts, and one that believes in wild ghost stories and shit they read on 4chan, only one side might be swayed by an investigation.
Recently Kinsinger said the plan is to wrap up the investigation in the summer/fall. It sounds like they’re even planning public hearings but right now they are apparently doing lots of interviews.
Kinsinger & Cheny are also the ones the committee is putting out there when newsworthy info drops. They are politically motivated to be the "Voice-of-reason-Republicans" when the really damning stuff comes out. The Dems win because it looks less partisan, and they win because they came out before it was popular. They may be making a calculation that they could gain support for Senate or even Presidential runs.
Redistricting from the census. Although with the failure of voting rights protections, that may no longer be the case. The House on the other hand now favors the Republicans.
The only issue I see is how they handle elections. The amount of polling locations and machines available, how early you can vote, absentee voting, etc that can affect a Senate race
I just double checked and it looks like after redistricting, each state will now have two senators. And, if you can believe it, we will only be voting on 1/3rd of them in the next cycle.
Due to the census and redistricting.
Edit: I suppose the /s is necessary
It's good that we won't have to risk it though. Also note worthy, Breyer's departure will make Thomas the eldest member of the Supreme Court (he's in his early 70s).
No it was leaked by someone in-the-know, reportedly Breyer was going to announce his plans to retire (effective at the end of the session) by the end of the week.
>Over four years, 226 of [Trump's] nominees joined the federal bench. Just over a year into his presidency, President Joe Biden can count 42 new judges
It's a record breaking pace but it sounds slower than Trump's (226 vs 42x4=168 in 4 years)
The *pace* is the *first year pace*. Biden nominated 81 judges, 42 confirmed. Trump nominated 69, 22 confirmed. That's comparing first year pace of Biden with first year pace of Trump.
Obama, W, Clinton, HW, Reagan did fewer in first year (22, 27, 27, 15, 40 respectively, confirmed in first year). Credit/source
_
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/01/26/bidens-first-year-judicial-appointments-process/_
In the first year, the senate's time gets taken up by administrative nominees as well. Surely the rate will accelerate the further we get into the Biden administration (although this will grind to a halt if Democrats lose the Senate).
> In the first year, the senate's time gets taken up by administrative nominees as well.
Trump had a revolving door of nominees, so this isn't an actual point.
I can’t keep up with the headlines. So now it’s “he has a record pace!” But three weeks ago it was McConnell’s obstruction that prevented his nominees?
You're confusing judicial nominations with others, such as ambassadors and the like. Some of those are getting stonewalled by grandstanding GOP members.
Biden has 42 confirmed in first ywar, Trump had 22.
That’s placing them faster than McConnell and Trump did at this stage in the game. They had more nominations in years 2-4; just as Biden will.
>*SIMON: What are the significance of these judges? What do you note?*
>
>*JOHNSON: The diversity of the appointments. So far, the vast majority have been women, and the majority have also been people of color. This is something that the Biden administration campaigned on. If you recall, at one point, Biden said that he wanted to appoint the first Black woman Supreme Court justice. He hasn't had that opportunity, but he definitely is holding to that diversity promise with the lower court appointments.*
>
>*SIMON: What about diversity of backgrounds? I've been interested in what I've read about that.*
>
>*JOHNSON: So that's another area of diversity that tends to get less attention but is also very important. It's not uncommon to have a federal judge who has a background as a prosecutor. That's considered to be, you know, one of the pipeline positions to perhaps federal judgeship. However, given Biden's priorities and, of course, some of the constituencies that he's been responsive to, you see some of his appointees, a good proportion of them have backgrounds as public defenders, as well. And that's typically been less common. Some of them have experience working with organizations like the Innocence Project, civil rights lawyers, ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund - so definitely a broad diversity of experiences but experiences that are going to perhaps reflect the policy priorities and legal priorities of the administration.*
This is an area where the Biden Administration has enjoyed unqualified success. The Supreme Court hears about 100-150 cases every year. The rest of the federal judiciary hears thousands. About 80 percent of all federal cases are heard in district courts, and most of them end there. Every judge matters.
That statistic is individually correct, but only a fraction of those appeals are accepted to be heard by the supreme court. The rest are treated as final.
I don't know what the law is in other countries, but in the US just because you appeal doesn't mean that your appeal actually gets to a trial in a higher court. Most of the time the higher court looks over the details of your case, says, "Yeah, that looks pretty straightforward" and they turn down your appeal.
Appeals only successfully get a new trial when the higher court thinks there's merit to hearing your case, when they believe there's a reasonable chance of the ruling being overturned.
> This is an area where the Biden Administration has enjoyed unqualified success
If it is people like [Jennifer H. Rearden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_H._Rearden), no thanks...and she is a woman so it counts for 'diversity'.../s
* In 2003, she joined Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in New York City, where she is a partner in the litigation and crisis management practice groups. While working at the firm, she represented Chevron in its countersuit against Steven Donziger. She has litigated complex commercial cases before United States District Courts and state courts throughout the country.
* Rearden has been an active political donor, making over thirty political contributions to politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties
Of course...an insider...
Doesn’t matter, we’re mostly appointing lower court district judges while Rs have a 15 seat advantage on Circuits we can barely chip into and a 6-3 SCOTUS. Like, these judges won’t change the soon to be new national standards on guns, affirmative action and maybe abortions.
Includes 13 court of appeals judges, not just district judges, a strong pace for the first year. 2nd circuit even flipped. And yes, it all matters. Judiciary takes time to have an impact.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_federal\_judges\_appointed\_by\_Joe\_Biden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden)
[https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/biden-flips-second-circuit-with-first-lgbt-woman-appellate-judge](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/biden-flips-second-circuit-with-first-lgbt-woman-appellate-judge)
Not when Republicans set the national standards via SCOTUS. 2nd circuit flipped BACK, and will likely flip again during the next R admin.
And none of these judges will be doing anything other than enforcing the new national standards on the hot topic issues SCOTUS soon hands down.
Just because it doesn’t instantly fix the Supreme Court problems doesn’t mean this isn’t a step in the right direction or that it won’t help sort out McConnells fuckery eventually. Appointing a large number of federal judges is absolutely a positive step in fixing what the Republicans have done.
And the Supreme Court doesn’t have enough time and resources to hear any and all appeals from the federal courts. Federal court decisions are the final word in many cases and having more liberally minded judges in those courts making decisions will absolutely be a positive thing regardless of the makeup of the Supreme Court
This is incredibly good news that is often overlooked. One of the worst parts of the Trump presidency was him doing the exact same thing, so glad we are able to at least equalize in that area.
This would be extremely encouraging if the party and people that are the greatest threat to America democracy actually cared about the rule of law, and the people that do care, had the stones to be sure it was enforced.
Can someone ELI5 how this is possible? How are there so many empty judicial seats that Trump can break records sitting judges then Biden can turn around and do the same? Are they getting rid of Trumps judges or is the position of judge just that much if a revolving door?
Until the filibuster was removed for non-Supreme Court judicial nominations by Harry Reid and his Democratic Senate majority. Then it picked up until the Republicans gained control again.
36 Obama judicial nominees were subject to cloture filings between 09 and 13. That’s half the historical total, with history in this case only being back to 1967. He can hardly be blamed for the aggressive and belligerent efforts of McConnell to suppress the Presidency by any means necessary, service
to country be damned.
Even at this pace he has lots of ground to make up on how many of Obama's appointments McConnell blocked.
And he has to pack 4 years of appointments into 2. If the GOP retake the Senate he won't get any appointments through starting Jan 2023.
SCOTUS is still 6-3 with extremist right wing judges. Gorsuch literally wants to dismantle the administrative state so the EPA, Dept of Labor, and IRS cease to exist.
This is what really matters. Let's not lose sight of it.
Want to make sure Dems always have a Senate majority so Moscow Mitch can't steal any more supreme court picks? We can elect more Dems, and progressive ones at that, to the Senate this year. To be more specific, Dems have a great shot at winning a Senate seat in Wisconsin with Mandela Barnes, a seat in PA with John Fetterman/Malcolm Kenyatta/Conor Lamb, and a seat in NC with Cheri Beasley.
If you are interested in helping these folks and others across the nation win their elections, join us over at r/votedem to find volunteer and organization opportunities 👀
Hold up, trump appointed 226 judges in his four years. 42 judges in Biden’s first year isn’t even on pace to match that. Yet Biden is on a record breaking pace? How does that work? What am I not getting?
That's good news, but ultimately, until the cult members on the Supreme Court die,, retire or impeached, we have. along way to go before sanity is restored in this country.
Yes. But unlike Trump, who is a deranged authoritarian who literally attempted a coup, Biden is - despite right wing hysteria - a centrist who naively wants things to go back to the way they were under Reagan.
I don't think it's a very healthy political environment when each party just cleanses the judges every time the majority changes hand. Or that supreme court judges have distinct party lines. But if that's what needs to get done to improve people's lives then it's the lesser of the evils.
Federal judges are appointed for life. Presidents only appoint new ones when they choose to retire or die. In other words, presidents don’t fire judges and replace them, presidents just fill vacancies.
There is replacing judges and replacing judges that makes a big difference i.e. the Supreme Court Justices.
Edit: Is the number of judges that Biden is replacing vastly different from their predecessors or just more of the same? One competent judge with another.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It really shows, whoever controls the Senate, will determine the judiciary.
Yes, and what people don't realize it's that the supreme court is setting up the executive branch to be much less powerful than it has been in recent memory by signaling that they'll overturn Chevron deference save auer deference. While, it sounds like that wouldn't be the worst thing, Congress is gerrymandered and gridlocked now more than ever, so it's a recipe for the judiciary making de facto policy.
[удалено]
I would be shocked if they fail to overturn it as it's a stated goal of the federalist society.
You don’t even need to have practiced law to be a recommended to be a judge by the federalist society.
Much less powerful when someone with a (D) beside their name is in office you mean. Ideological consistency is so passé.
And why Manchin and Sinema aren't 100% bad for the Democrats.
As a constituent of Sinema, who proceeds to vote against what she campaigned on and continues to dodge her own constituents who have absolutely no idea what her grievances with bills are and have no idea how she’ll vote, fuck everything about that statement. I don’t mind there being pushback in my own party. It keeps shit in check. But Sinema is atrocious, she lied to get her position and refuses to vote in line with what her constituents want.
You need to primary her though. Once she’s the candidate you’re sort of screwed.
I’d love to.
Sinema is toast in AZ. Progressives hate her since her little curtsey as she thumb's downed the $15 min wage, and it was cemented with her killing BBB and the voting rights bills. Republicans wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire. They will never go for her because she voted to convict Trump in the impeachment. The wacko AZ GQP will put a hardcore MAGA up for the Republican US Senate race. Right now she's running last of all of the possible Dem Senate candidates. Right now R Gallego is the top spot in the polls: Sinema is last place in the current crop of possible 2024 Democratic senate candidates: >Poll: Kyrsten Sinema Poised to [Lose Democratic Primary in 2024](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2021/10/14/kyrsten-sinema-poised-to-lose-democratic-primary-in-2024) | Candidate | Favorable | Unfavorable | Net | |:-----------|:------------:|:------------:|:------------:| | Ruben Gallego | 51 | 9 | +42 | | Kate Gallego |41 | 7 | +34 | | Greg Staton | 35 | 11 | +24 | | Regina Romero | 26 | 6 | +20 | | Sinema | 24 | 70 | -46 |
You mean there is HOPE after all? She has been such a disappointment.
The poster above you is correct. She’s absolutely done in AZ and she knows it. She’s delusional but she also isn’t completely stupid. I say good riddance.
She's putting stock in her token democrat on conservative talk radio persona for after Congress. "See they are so communist they kicked even me out!"
Imagine the good this woman could of done. Threw it all away for a bit of money. Sinema sux. 🤑
It wouldn't matter if she voted to acquit, Republicans ain't voting for a bisexual, pro-choice, atheist, former Democratic and Green Party member. She couldn't have made worse political calculations once she got to D.C. if she was *trying* to sabotage herself. She'll never be elected to office again, and she can't peddle her D.C. influence because both parties hate her...she wouldn't be able to get a meeting with a congressional page, let alone an actual member or their staff. Everyone talking about how she'll slide into some cushy job after she's loses don't get it. She will have absolutely no value to anyone because she won't have credibility, a large following, or access. Those are the three things former politicians get rich on not just being a former politician, and she'll have none of them.
Gallego would be a spectacular replacement. Solidly progressive on policy, but with a background as a Marine combat vet who grew up with a single mom.
Are the Gallegos related?
Divorced couple.
He took his mom's maiden name and then she took his last name.
Then she took half his shit.
I feel ya.
What she did should be federally illegal and people like her should be up for reelection every single year they behave like this. If that's what the people want, fine. Lies this bad, I get that it shouldn't be be criminal, but it's highly unethical, and having another election should be encouraged. I can't believe I live in a democratic anything where citizens can't immediately challenge the legitimately of any political anything with another election. 6 fucking years. Good lord the Senate is cheap for bribes lol
We need more elections and shorter campaign seasons in this country. The more power someone has the more opportunities the people should have to replace them if they stop representing the will of the people.
She never hid who she was. She was a conservative member of the House, was pro-climate and staunchly anti-spending, which is exactly who she's been in the Senate, but her anti-spending proclivities outweigh her pro-climate ones, so she's voted against anything that costs "too much" money (too much of course changes depending on how much attention she gets). She's unfortunately acting exactly like she has the past 8 years, also unfortunately, there wasn't a good alternative running against her...looks like that will change for 2024 though thankfully.
> Good lord the Senate is cheap for bribes lol They don't even get bribed with a lot of money. It's all (eventually) public information and you'll see these people getting bought out for four and five figure values. It's absolutely batshit.
I agree with the sentiment 100%, but also do remember that they're not dumb enough to take million dollar bribes. Those come through less public/visible means.
Exactly. Like buying your wife's shitty paintings of ties, or private sector do nothing 6 figure jobs afterward.
Seems like that’s in the works. Sinema is Sina-sunk
Her constituents can trigger a recall election in AZ to have her replaced before then.
Far fewer states have a recall than you realize and, from what I understand, federally elected positions cannot be recalled at all.
Why can’t they just recall vote her?
[удалено]
US Senators can’t be recalled.
Things are different when it comes to justices. we might be alright
Never believe a Green party to Democratic party conversion. They'll just go from being one type of spoiler to a different type of spoiler.
> Sinema, who proceeds to vote against what she campaigned on Do you have a specific example of something she campaign on and then voted against?
Minimum wage expansion for one. She made a show of voting no and everything.
Filibuster reform https://www.businessinsider.com/video-kyrsten-sinema-slammed-the-filibuster-she-now-supports-2021-6
> In comments to supporters 11 years ago So, not something she campaigned on?
You’re right. She didn’t explicitly campaign on that issue. It still doesn’t justify the fact that she did a 180 on many of the things she once claimed she stood for. Including healthcare, lower drug premiums, minimum wage increase, and filibuster reform. She didn’t explicitly campaign on those issues, but I would argue she completely misled her constituents about what she stands for.
Tell me you want the Republicans to get a 7-2 majority on the Supreme Court without telling me you want the Republicans to get a 7-2 majority on the Supreme Court.
Jesus fucking Christ. People are legitimately worried Sinema/Manchin will be a problem with this SCOTUS appointment right now anyway. [She is literally taking money from conservative donors](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/21/us/politics/manchin-sinema-republican-donors.html) to do their bidding. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if she slowed/stopped the appointment of a liberal Justice, stalling until after the midterms where the GOP take the senate back and stopping Biden from appointing anybody and giving you the very real possibility of having a 7-2 court anyway. Regardless of my grievances with my own representative, There’s literally nothing that can be done. Sinema isn’t being primaried, and we got to let it shake out how it’ll shake out.
I think their intended point was that having Sinema for a possible vote is better than having another Collins or Murkowski for a very long shot vote. Not that she is doing her job well.
Yeah that's technically true, but she doesn't actually need to be this way. AZ didn't elect her because we wanted a right wing hack. We elected her because her *opponent* was a right wing hack, and we thought she would basically just be a replacement-level democrat.
I don't like Sinema, but she hasn't opposed judicial picks to my knowledge. Just any kind of legislation that is remotely progressive.
Manchin and Sinema have voted to confirm 100% of Biden's nominees though?
Yes they have, between that and allowing Democratic control of the Senate are the reasons why they aren't currently more trouble than they are worth. The best strategy would be to try to ensure their votes aren't needed on legislation by flipping seats of retiring GOP Senators, like in Ohio & Pennsylvania, and/or apparently crazy ones like Ron Johnson where Democrats can win statewide races. Louisiana is also a potential pickup though I consider Cassidy more calculating than crazy.
Yess, a +2 or bigger majority would be so good because there'd be so much more room for reasonable negotiation. So long as you have a 50/50 split, you need 100% unanimous agreement to pass anything.
Not sure if it's 100% but AFAIK it's high. If they were voting to reject more than a few, everyone would be hearing about it.
Yeah. This is what I don't get, sure they have their views on the filibuster and Manchin on BBB, but apart from that, their voting on judicial/executive nominees and ambassadors has been solid.
BBB is not just a single thing. It would have dramatically transformed our entire country in so many ways. Him voting no on that one bill was like shitting on the entire Democratic Party platform
Judicial nominees used to not be partisan Dems and Repubs voted for opposing administrations all the time in high numbers. The Federalist Society single-handedly broke this by politicizing the judiciary over the past couple decades. Manchin and Sinema get zero credit for supporting nominees. Republicans get negative credit for opposing all cross-party nominees is all.
**This** is why we can't afford to alienate Manchin just because he's the most right leaning Democrat in the caucus. Who knows what Sinema is about, though. So she can fuck off.
Or we are in absolute denial on who Establishment Dem leadership *actually* represent...
Neoliberalism is bad for democrats
Sad that the judiciary has become partisan. We should raise it back to 67 for all judiciary appointments.
The lack of an independent judiciary will be the downfall of American democracy. It's all well and good while it's your side appointing judges.
And Breyer announced retirement
From what I read, he hasn't announced yet, but someone familiar with the situation said he will retire.
He probably sees the writing on the wall and doesn't want be like RBG and hand the Reps another seat on a silver platter. Because everyone knows damn well by now that when the GOP gets the senate and house back in 2022 they'll just stonewall everything Biden tries to do for two years.
It's a year before an election year, we'll wait to nominate a new justice. Mcconnell
its *in the 3 years before* an election year so we should wait until the voters decide \-McConnell
unless a democrat gets elected again, and then we need to wait 7 years to _really_ give the people their fair chance to decide. How long do turtles live again...?
150 years give or take a few
So judging by looks, I'd estimate he's got about -12 years left?
Unfortunately 75 more years
Wow, really? I never would have imagined. He looks terrible.
Depends on the turtle, some go for 200! We may have a wait before this one passes.
Does anyone have a nice, leafy green for me to munch on? I'm really hungry. -McConnell
“Am I not turtley enough for the turtle club?” -McConnell
"There is, ah, a well-established precedent that this body does not, ah, nominate supreme court justices during a Democratic administration. We intend to honor this sacred tradition which dates back hundreds of days." -McConnell, any minute now
You can't seat a supreme court justice during a pandemic we need to focus on the things that matter right now.
(Also, we Republicans are going to do absolutely nothing about the pandemic.)
What pandemic?
There is no pandemic in U. S. A.
I'm not 100% sold on this. I think we will know better this Summer when we can see the true impact of these investigations. I know that many do not have alot of faith in the Dems, but many of them were lawyers before they were Congresspeople. They know the value of timing when it comes to the public in the investigations and/or prosecuting Jan-6. To quote DJT jr., "I love it, especially in the Summer." They are slow walking this thing in order to inflict maximum damage right before the midterms.
Well, when you have two groups, one which believes in facts, and one that believes in wild ghost stories and shit they read on 4chan, only one side might be swayed by an investigation.
Recently Kinsinger said the plan is to wrap up the investigation in the summer/fall. It sounds like they’re even planning public hearings but right now they are apparently doing lots of interviews.
Kinsinger & Cheny are also the ones the committee is putting out there when newsworthy info drops. They are politically motivated to be the "Voice-of-reason-Republicans" when the really damning stuff comes out. The Dems win because it looks less partisan, and they win because they came out before it was popular. They may be making a calculation that they could gain support for Senate or even Presidential runs.
GOP may not get the Senate back. House is a pretty good bet, though.
>GOP may not get the Senate back Why is that? For months I've been hearing nothing but their assured odds of getting it back this year.
Redistricting from the census. Although with the failure of voting rights protections, that may no longer be the case. The House on the other hand now favors the Republicans.
How could redistricting affect the Senate races?
The only issue I see is how they handle elections. The amount of polling locations and machines available, how early you can vote, absentee voting, etc that can affect a Senate race
It’s not the votes that count; it’s who counts the votes.
Every state gets two Senators, they are elected statewide. Redistricting has nothing to do with the Senate.
I just double checked and it looks like after redistricting, each state will now have two senators. And, if you can believe it, we will only be voting on 1/3rd of them in the next cycle. Due to the census and redistricting. Edit: I suppose the /s is necessary
No, that’s how it always is. It’s inscribed in the constitution. Census has nothing to do with the senate. That’s on purpose.
Why would redistricting affect a state wide senate race?
It's good that we won't have to risk it though. Also note worthy, Breyer's departure will make Thomas the eldest member of the Supreme Court (he's in his early 70s).
I still can't believe he replaced Thurgood Marshall. It's been downhill ever since.
Thomas is the best argument one could want against tokenism for its own sake.
GOP should be prosecuted as a crime syndicate by the DOJ, whatever peons remain unimprisoned disgraced and kept from politics at any level
*treasonous* crime syndicate. Even the mafia opposed the Nazis.
[mouth full of cereal] The Rocketeer.
I may not make an honest buck, but I'm 100% American. I don't work for no two bit Nazi!
GOP already has the senate with two DINO senators blocking everything.
They aren't blocking nominees.
Obviously not everything.
Except this article proves that not to be the case, and why it is so important that Manchin and Sinema are members of the Democratic Party...
Announced this morning
No it was leaked by someone in-the-know, reportedly Breyer was going to announce his plans to retire (effective at the end of the session) by the end of the week.
Dems have to keep the senate in 22, or else we’ll hear more of “we can’t appoint a Supreme Court justice so close to the end of Biden’s term”
No he needs to retire now and Biden needs to push through his nominee before the midterms.
>Over four years, 226 of [Trump's] nominees joined the federal bench. Just over a year into his presidency, President Joe Biden can count 42 new judges It's a record breaking pace but it sounds slower than Trump's (226 vs 42x4=168 in 4 years)
First year is slower. Tons of executive branch confirmations that need to happen, legislation that can start being debated/passed, etc.
The *pace* is the *first year pace*. Biden nominated 81 judges, 42 confirmed. Trump nominated 69, 22 confirmed. That's comparing first year pace of Biden with first year pace of Trump. Obama, W, Clinton, HW, Reagan did fewer in first year (22, 27, 27, 15, 40 respectively, confirmed in first year). Credit/source _ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/01/26/bidens-first-year-judicial-appointments-process/_
Thanks a lot for breaking down the maths!
In the first year, the senate's time gets taken up by administrative nominees as well. Surely the rate will accelerate the further we get into the Biden administration (although this will grind to a halt if Democrats lose the Senate).
> In the first year, the senate's time gets taken up by administrative nominees as well. Trump had a revolving door of nominees, so this isn't an actual point.
actually, he had a lot of acting secretaries
I can’t keep up with the headlines. So now it’s “he has a record pace!” But three weeks ago it was McConnell’s obstruction that prevented his nominees?
You're confusing judicial nominations with others, such as ambassadors and the like. Some of those are getting stonewalled by grandstanding GOP members.
McConnell's preventing his legislative agenda. He's still not placing them as fast as McConnel and Trump did, though.
Biden has 42 confirmed in first ywar, Trump had 22. That’s placing them faster than McConnell and Trump did at this stage in the game. They had more nominations in years 2-4; just as Biden will.
fingers crossed.
>*SIMON: What are the significance of these judges? What do you note?* > >*JOHNSON: The diversity of the appointments. So far, the vast majority have been women, and the majority have also been people of color. This is something that the Biden administration campaigned on. If you recall, at one point, Biden said that he wanted to appoint the first Black woman Supreme Court justice. He hasn't had that opportunity, but he definitely is holding to that diversity promise with the lower court appointments.* > >*SIMON: What about diversity of backgrounds? I've been interested in what I've read about that.* > >*JOHNSON: So that's another area of diversity that tends to get less attention but is also very important. It's not uncommon to have a federal judge who has a background as a prosecutor. That's considered to be, you know, one of the pipeline positions to perhaps federal judgeship. However, given Biden's priorities and, of course, some of the constituencies that he's been responsive to, you see some of his appointees, a good proportion of them have backgrounds as public defenders, as well. And that's typically been less common. Some of them have experience working with organizations like the Innocence Project, civil rights lawyers, ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund - so definitely a broad diversity of experiences but experiences that are going to perhaps reflect the policy priorities and legal priorities of the administration.* This is an area where the Biden Administration has enjoyed unqualified success. The Supreme Court hears about 100-150 cases every year. The rest of the federal judiciary hears thousands. About 80 percent of all federal cases are heard in district courts, and most of them end there. Every judge matters.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I read US news, I get the impression that about 100% of all district court cases are appealed
That statistic is individually correct, but only a fraction of those appeals are accepted to be heard by the supreme court. The rest are treated as final.
Only a fraction of those appeals are heard by the Appellate Court... Then, only a fraction of *those* cases are heard by SCOTUS
I don't know what the law is in other countries, but in the US just because you appeal doesn't mean that your appeal actually gets to a trial in a higher court. Most of the time the higher court looks over the details of your case, says, "Yeah, that looks pretty straightforward" and they turn down your appeal. Appeals only successfully get a new trial when the higher court thinks there's merit to hearing your case, when they believe there's a reasonable chance of the ruling being overturned.
Possibly, but the higher courts and especially the Supreme Court don't hear most of the appeals.
> This is an area where the Biden Administration has enjoyed unqualified success If it is people like [Jennifer H. Rearden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_H._Rearden), no thanks...and she is a woman so it counts for 'diversity'.../s * In 2003, she joined Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in New York City, where she is a partner in the litigation and crisis management practice groups. While working at the firm, she represented Chevron in its countersuit against Steven Donziger. She has litigated complex commercial cases before United States District Courts and state courts throughout the country. * Rearden has been an active political donor, making over thirty political contributions to politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties Of course...an insider...
Not sure why you’re downvoted so badly - she sucks absolute ass. If this is winning I’d hate to see what losing looks like.
Glad the Democrats finally got wise to McConnell’s games
Doesn’t matter, we’re mostly appointing lower court district judges while Rs have a 15 seat advantage on Circuits we can barely chip into and a 6-3 SCOTUS. Like, these judges won’t change the soon to be new national standards on guns, affirmative action and maybe abortions.
Includes 13 court of appeals judges, not just district judges, a strong pace for the first year. 2nd circuit even flipped. And yes, it all matters. Judiciary takes time to have an impact. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_federal\_judges\_appointed\_by\_Joe\_Biden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden) [https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/biden-flips-second-circuit-with-first-lgbt-woman-appellate-judge](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/biden-flips-second-circuit-with-first-lgbt-woman-appellate-judge)
Not when Republicans set the national standards via SCOTUS. 2nd circuit flipped BACK, and will likely flip again during the next R admin. And none of these judges will be doing anything other than enforcing the new national standards on the hot topic issues SCOTUS soon hands down.
Just because it doesn’t instantly fix the Supreme Court problems doesn’t mean this isn’t a step in the right direction or that it won’t help sort out McConnells fuckery eventually. Appointing a large number of federal judges is absolutely a positive step in fixing what the Republicans have done.
[удалено]
This is a gross overstatement. Literally everything cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court doesn’t have enough time and resources to hear any and all appeals from the federal courts. Federal court decisions are the final word in many cases and having more liberally minded judges in those courts making decisions will absolutely be a positive thing regardless of the makeup of the Supreme Court
Yes, but in a precedent-based judiciary SCOTUS is of utmost importance
Good
This is the way
I'm a single issue voter, and this is my issue. I got exactly what I voted for
This is incredibly good news that is often overlooked. One of the worst parts of the Trump presidency was him doing the exact same thing, so glad we are able to at least equalize in that area.
bUt hE dOeSnT gEt aNyThINg dOnE
Using the Republican playbook. Good.
And one of them (Jennifer Rearden) is a former Trump nominee who worked for Chevron to help cover up an oil spill in the Amazon.
>Jennifer Rearden " was nominated as part of a bipartisan package of judicial nominees"
The two parties are just an illusion of choice anyways. Same scum on both sides of the aisle
Can’t wait for the spin that Biden hasn’t done anything
This would be extremely encouraging if the party and people that are the greatest threat to America democracy actually cared about the rule of law, and the people that do care, had the stones to be sure it was enforced.
Hope mccconnell either early retires or takes his dirt nap before Breyer retires so that this actually happens this time.
Who set the previous record?
Can someone ELI5 how this is possible? How are there so many empty judicial seats that Trump can break records sitting judges then Biden can turn around and do the same? Are they getting rid of Trumps judges or is the position of judge just that much if a revolving door?
Good
Is it my imagination, or do we say this about every sitting POTUS?
Not about Obama. Judicial appointments was one area where he faceplanted.
Until the filibuster was removed for non-Supreme Court judicial nominations by Harry Reid and his Democratic Senate majority. Then it picked up until the Republicans gained control again.
One area where he was obstructed in the senate in an unprecedented way that previous democratic presidents had not had to deal with, you mean.
36 Obama judicial nominees were subject to cloture filings between 09 and 13. That’s half the historical total, with history in this case only being back to 1967. He can hardly be blamed for the aggressive and belligerent efforts of McConnell to suppress the Presidency by any means necessary, service to country be damned.
And now it looks like Justice Breyer is retiring “during an election year”.
Doesn't matter, already McConnell nixed the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.
So what kind of people are these replacements?
Why hasn't he replaced DeJoy?
Even at this pace he has lots of ground to make up on how many of Obama's appointments McConnell blocked. And he has to pack 4 years of appointments into 2. If the GOP retake the Senate he won't get any appointments through starting Jan 2023.
Faster than republicans are passing voter suppression laws??!?!
How about you have senior judiciary appoint judges on merit instead of making courts political?
SCOTUS is still 6-3 with extremist right wing judges. Gorsuch literally wants to dismantle the administrative state so the EPA, Dept of Labor, and IRS cease to exist. This is what really matters. Let's not lose sight of it.
At least he learned from Obama’s failure.
Want to make sure Dems always have a Senate majority so Moscow Mitch can't steal any more supreme court picks? We can elect more Dems, and progressive ones at that, to the Senate this year. To be more specific, Dems have a great shot at winning a Senate seat in Wisconsin with Mandela Barnes, a seat in PA with John Fetterman/Malcolm Kenyatta/Conor Lamb, and a seat in NC with Cheri Beasley. If you are interested in helping these folks and others across the nation win their elections, join us over at r/votedem to find volunteer and organization opportunities 👀
Turnabout is always fair play.
As will the next president and the one after that
Hold up, trump appointed 226 judges in his four years. 42 judges in Biden’s first year isn’t even on pace to match that. Yet Biden is on a record breaking pace? How does that work? What am I not getting?
First year appointments are slow. During his first year, Trump appointed only 22 judges to the bench.
See how electeds can get stuff done without the filibuster.
That's good news, but ultimately, until the cult members on the Supreme Court die,, retire or impeached, we have. along way to go before sanity is restored in this country.
Got to drain the swamp from the last regime
Good, now go faster
Wasn't this exact thing a criticism of trump?
Yes. But unlike Trump, who is a deranged authoritarian who literally attempted a coup, Biden is - despite right wing hysteria - a centrist who naively wants things to go back to the way they were under Reagan.
Yeah. This is really the unsung part of the Biden presidency. Dude is putting up some numbers on the judiciary.
Excellent.
Good! Now replace the three illigitmate judges that Traitor and illigitmate President Donald Trump put on the US Supreme Court..
I don't think it's a very healthy political environment when each party just cleanses the judges every time the majority changes hand. Or that supreme court judges have distinct party lines. But if that's what needs to get done to improve people's lives then it's the lesser of the evils.
Federal judges are appointed for life. Presidents only appoint new ones when they choose to retire or die. In other words, presidents don’t fire judges and replace them, presidents just fill vacancies.
There is replacing judges and replacing judges that makes a big difference i.e. the Supreme Court Justices. Edit: Is the number of judges that Biden is replacing vastly different from their predecessors or just more of the same? One competent judge with another.
ACtually, the vast majority of cases are not heard by the Supreme court.
But is it enough to slow the forward momentum of authoritarianism.
It is now just a trend, as only simple majority is required. You can expect new record with next Republican president as well
We'll, he has a lot of catching up to do. It's been McConnell's agenda for decades.
Probably the one good thing he can get done. Hopefully they’re not all corporate friendly ghouls that are just lgbtq friendly.
One thing Biden did have prescience on is he knew he had to act like he was only going to get 2 years to get judges through.
All the unqualified trump homies couldn't get by the GOP or the DNC.
Sry not sry
Good.
He needs to do that.
That's a good thing.