the so-called nuclear option is just business as usual for dirty Harry and the
other senate democrats. Harry Reid is not interested in America - only retention
of political power in any ways or means necessary and that is why I say the man
is a "clear and present danger" to the viability of the United States of
Going nuclear was a such a horrible idea, I'm sure the Repubs will change
the rule back as soon as they're in the majority.
One more step towards Liar in chiefs coronation!
Re: "No, the burden of proof is on you and any Senate Republican . . .
."Let's be clear -- it wasn't Senate Republicans that
trashed Constitutional government and fired the first shots of the Second
American Civil War.In fact, they declined to do so in 2008, at a
time when EVERY Democrat leader now praising use of the nuclear option declared
undying enmity towards it, and anyone that would even think of using it.It is Democrats -- specifically the President and his lapdog, Bro. Reid
-- that must take the blame for the inevitable consequences of what they've
done. And, for no greater purpose than to preserve venal, corrupt, partisan,
political control.They'll be treated by American historians as
the equals of Jefferson Davis, John B. Floyd [sent American arms to southern
forts just prior to Civil War -- Camp Floyd, of Utah War fame, is named after
him], and Alexander Stephens [Confederate Cornerstone Speech -- "slavery,
subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal
condition"].How sad to carry that around their necks forever, as
their historical legacy.
I seem to remember a lot of Democrats putting "holds" on Bush judicial
appointments and other and not allowing votes. While they may not have been
filibusters, they accomplished the same thing. Hilary was particulary adept at
putting holds on nominees. All the Democrat whining is just that.
Whining. I can't wait until King Harry is in the minority party.Happy Harry may have just blown a big hole in the collective Democrat foot.
Re:RedshirtYOU are wrong about Taranto.President Obama
originally nominated Judge Taranto in November 2011. After more than a year in
confirmation limbo, the president re-nominated Taranto in January 2013.
Hold on now, it is simply changing the ability for presidential appointments to
be passed by a majority instead of what could be called a super majority. Not
really a bomb shell that many are acting like it is. Relax please.
Knee jerk partisan opinion.
To "Truthseeker" that is a nice rant, but you still have not answered
the question. Why were they delayed?If you looked into some of the
stories more than just spouting off what some liberal said, you would find that
many of the appointments are held up out of TRADITION. Historically in the
senate (regardless of who controls it), they delay voting on lifetime
appointments until AFTER the election.Your infot on Richard Taranto
is wrong. He was nominated January 3, 2013, then received his votes for
appointment on March 12, 2013Like it or not, so far you have not
shown that there is anything other than business as usual going on in
Why won't Obama present candidates that are acceptable to both parties?
Instead he presents candidates that are as extreme, inexperienced, and partisan
as he is.I am sure he could get candidates through the Senate if he
would propose acceptable candidates.
Re:RedshirtGood question. Why were they blocked for so long?Examples:* On March 11 the Senate confirmed Richard Taranto for the
Federal Circuit Court by a vote of 91 to 0, 484 days after the president
nominated him.On Feb. 25 the Senate confirmed Robert Bacharach by a
vote of 93 to 0 to serve on the Tenth Circuit in Oklahoma, after he waited 263
days to get a vote. His home-state senator, GOP Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.),
recommended him for the post.* On Feb. 13, the Senate confirmed
William Kayatta for the First Circuit from Maine 88 to12 after he waited 300
days. On Feb. 25 the Senate confirmed Robert Bacharach by a vote of
93 to 0 to serve on the Tenth Circuit in Oklahoma, after he waited 263 days to
get a vote. His home-state senator, GOP Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), recommended him
for the post.There's more.If these candidates were
unqualified, too liberal, or questionable in any way it is represented in the
confirmation tally once they finally were voted on.We know why.
Republicans are simply sore losers and have done everything and anything to
oppose Obama, even on noncontroversial appontments.
Heretic,Maybe there wouldn't have been as many filibusters during
this administration if Democrats hadn't started the new administration all
drunk on their Super-Majority power-play and locked out the Republicans, and
consistently told them they don't need their votes because they can do
whatever they want, and passed huge legislation without even trying to get a
single minority vote?I don't know. I'm just sayin...
there MAY have been better ways to kickoff your new Bi-Partisan administration
than locking the Republicans out of the room.---I have
to admit that Republicans have behaved badly during this administration too.
But what do you expect when Democrats are constantly telling
Republicans they don't matter... and they are irrelevant, because we have
the votes to pass whatever we want AND to overrule any filibusters they may
try?Democrat power-play at the beginning of the Obama Administration
put Republicans in a corner (where filibuster was their only option, and even
that was doomed to failure because Democrats had enough votes to stop that).You didn't expect Republicans to take it lying down... did you?
They had to protest somehow!
To "Scoundrel" and "Happy Valley Heretic" yes that many
appointments have been blocked, but the question is why? Were they blocked
because the Republicans are just getting revenge? Were they blocked because
they have questionable records and histories, and would do damage if they were
allowed to be appointed?Tell us, and give us some verifiable
evidence as to why they are being blocked. Don't just give us your
@Irony GuyThe Republicans may or may not *hate* Obama, but if they are any
thing like me, they hate much more his liberal politics and policies. It's
what he does that alarms so many Republicans. He's ultra left liberal in
his social issues, views on governing, and views on collaboration between
parties. And yes, there are fanatics on the other side of the
aisle.I'm not a politician or a political scientist. All I
know is that in earlier generations, the process was not so rancorous.
Politicians disagreed but still worked together for the common good. That seems
no longer the case. A nation divided cannot stand. With all the
talk of *diversity*, where is there a conversation about *unity*. This is our
country. All of ours. The vast majority aren't leaving any time soon. We
better find a way to fix it. Working together is my suggestion. What
we're doing is tearing us apart. Agreeing to disagree without being
disagreeable, compromise, values, unity, . . . peace . . . . is what we need.
I'm with the editorial board in lamenting the disappearance of conventions
which prevented the minority from engaging in the kinds of filibuster abuse
which have appeared over the past 12 years. I also applaud those Senators who
have tried to repair these conventions through "Gang of 14"-type
agreements. But in spite of such efforts, abuses have only accumulated, leading
the Senate far away from the rights-of-the-minority purpose behind cloture
rules, into a tyranny of the minority where Richard Shelby can put holds on
executive appointees in order to get pork for his home state, or where Lindsey
Graham can hold the Federal Reserve chair appointee in order to appease GOP
primary voters with Benghazi-related red meat. Senators who push the rules to
their breaking point faced few negative consequences, and some became stars on
cable news. The incentives were almost all on the side of an irresponsible use
of the powers of the minority, with no end in sight. So I applaud Reid's
"nuclear option", and I think the fact that future *Democratic*
minorities will be subject to the same restrictions is a positive feature, not a
This would not even be an issue if it had not been abused so excessively in
recent years. Minority power is just as corrupting as majority power when
overused in absolute, unwielding and uncompromising ways and it threatens our
democratic process. Want real change? Do it the way it was intended - elections.
The Constitution allows Congress to make its own rules, but if the Founding
Fathers believed in the supreme importance and absolute necessity for the
filibuster and the numbers required, they would have included it in the
provisions of legislative powers and responsibilities in the Constitution. I am
sure they did not even remotely envision what is going on today.
All you partisan people saying "Republicans brought this on their own
heads"... Remember, the law doesn't only apply to Republicans.
It's the new law for Democrats as well. Democrats may regret passing it
one day. Because I can guarantee you it WILL be used to ram stuff through that
THEY don't want as well.It will be interesting to hear the
Democrats wail (as they did when Republicans proposed the Nuclear-Option when
THEY were blocking all Bush's nominees).If you could hear
Senator Reid's passionate opposition to the Nuclear-Option when Republicans
proposed it a few years back when Democrats were in the minority so Republicans
could overcome Democrat opposition to Bush's appointees... I think his
famous speech back then would be a pretty good estimation of how badly Democrats
will hate this law (someday... when it's used to push stuff through without
partisan politicians having to work to get their support or even reduce their
opposition).The minority can just lay down and let the majority run
over them now (and Democrats will not always be in the majority).
DN is simply being partisan here. Fully half the nominee blockages since 1948
have happened since Obama took office! The Republicans were blocking votes just
because they hate Obama. This childishness has to stop, no matter which party is
in the majority.
Re: "Does anyone seriously doubt for one moment that were the roles reversed
. . . the Republicans would have "gone nuclear" far, far sooner . . .
?Yeah. We all do. Particularly since the roles WERE reversed just
five years ago, and the Republicans did NOT go nuclear.EVERY
Democrat who hypocritically supports the coup today came out as unequivocally,
unalterably opposed to it, at the time. Joe Biden "pray[ed] to God" it
would never be imposed on America. Then-Senator Obama expressed similar
sentiment, noting that a move such as he just encouraged and approved would
"put an end to democratic debate."Only liberals are as evil
as their current disingenuous accusations.
Sure, there's something to be said for keeping Senate rules unchanged.
There's little point in changing things just because one party CAN.But, on the other hand, the GOP has taken things to such a degree that
Democrats finally concluded that there was little or no downside to doing what
they had already threatened for years. The final straw was blocking three judges
to the D.C. Court of Appeals even though no one could think of a reason, other
than politics, to block them at all. This is another beat down the Republicans
brought on their own heads.One more thing. You can't miss
today's contrast in posts. The facts are mentioned and described calmly by
posters who suppot the Democratic action. From the other side, we get wild rants
about tyrants, monarchies, Stalin, Hitler and the rest. Invariably, those crying
the loudest just don't have the facts.
"...Sometimes, filibuster rules have empowered less-than-noble causes, as
when Southern Democrats stalled civil rights legislation...".Southern Democrats?There are few if any Southern Democrats
today.Where did they go?Today they form the bedrock base
of the ultra-right wing Republican Party.Today these folks are
simply following the lead of the same people who stalled civil rights
legislation.They have done/will continue to do everything in their
power to stall the Presidency of the first black president in American
history.The acorn did/does not fall far from the tree.
This editorial opinion is ridiculous. Any attempt to try to compare Democratic
opposition to the Cheney/Bush administration with what is happening now is pure
fantasy. The numbers listed in the first comment are all we really need to see.
But if we looked at the types of appointments that are being opposed and the
stated reasons, we would get an even clearer picture.The Republicans
have only themselves to blame. Simply seeking to destroy a sitting president,
especially a second-term president is not an agenda, nor is it governing. So
far, it has been political suicide.The DN opinion suggests that what
goes around comes around. But the way the nation is trending, it will be a long
time before the GOP controls the Senate and the White House.
I understand the Democrats position. But I think that they have given
themselves enough rope to hang themselves. Some of the judicial nominees are
truly scary. If they get into positions and make their outrageous rulings, the
Republicans are going to use that as a weapon . . . kind of like they are with
the ACA right now.My advice to the Republicans is that when the
situation changes, be magnaminous. Don't poke it in their eyes. No Tom
Delays, no Newt Gingrichs, Cheneys or Bushs. If they do then they will rule
drastic situations require drastic measures.The Republicans, for the
last 14 years have shown little, if any, "compromise" in their
actions.Per Sen. McConnell, the only job of Republicans is to block
everything Obama wants to do. Republicans have now had about 42 losing votes on
the ACA (Obamacare) even though the Supremes have declared it the law of the
land.The anti-filibuster law may come back to bite Democrats, but
for the time being it is the only option open. The Republicans have
been holding the American people hostage for too long.
Strange that we have heard no one who favor the filibuster argue for the return
of the "classic" filibuster made famous in "Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington". Yes those were the days when a Senator could stand and blather
for hours about significant Constitutional issues (read: "Green Eggs and
Ham") wasting what precious few hours these prima donnas actually work to
govern our Country. Why no support for the real filibuster???
"Until 2009, cloture votes were required mostly for judicial nominations,
not executive branch ones. But since Mr. Obama became president, that has
changed. Between 2009 and 2011, cloture was invoked twice for judicial
nominations and eight times for executive nominations.From 1967 to
2012, Senate majority leaders have sought to cut off debate over an executive
nominee 55 times, with 23 instances occurring during the Obama presidency,
according to the Congressional Research Service. During that same period,
cloture was invoked 67 times for judicial nominees, 31 of those during the Obama
administration.But 16 of Mr. Obama’s executive branch nominees
have been subject to cloture votes, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben
Bernanke, Richard Cordray, nominated to head the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and John Brennan, head of the CIA.Mr. Obama is also the only one of the five most recent presidents whose
average and median waiting time for circuit and district court nominees from
confirmation to nomination was more than six months." (WSJ 11/2013)
The right to filibuster only makes sense when the minority party implements them
judiciously. As Scoundrel proved in the first comment, the Republicans have
filibustered more routine appointments in the last 5 years than all previous
Senates over the previous 219 years combined. Republicans have seriously and
repeatedly abused this right. If you abuse a privilege you lose it; it's
Senator Obama claimed he would change Washington politics and bring a new era of
bi-partisanship.Please name ONE THING President Obama has done to
end partisan politics as usual...---Democrats CLAIM to
want bi-partisanship. Name one thing Democrat leaders in Congress have done to
foster bi-partisanship...---Did locking Republicans out
of Congressional committee meetings early in the Obama Administration help
foster a feeling of bi-partisanship?Did passing ObamaCare without
trying to get a single Republican vote (just saying.. "why try... we
don't need any Republican votes to pass this") show a commitment to
wanting bi-partisan support for the laws being passed?I don't
think so... HOW are Democrats showing they really want bi-partisan support for
the laws they are passing?---You don't do that by
cramming legislation or nominations you know they will oppose down the
minorities throat... just because you know you can (for now)?Keep
doing this and you will see what it's like to be back in the minority
sooner than you ever imagined. And then the laws you passed to keep the
minority in line will be used to keep YOU in line.
JoeBlow,I can tell you precisely what the issue is with each and
every nominee - they are Obama's pick.Yes, there are some that
have specific issues/worries, but the chief issue is simply that. Nothing more.
Nothing less.And that is why we are here.There are some
who would not agree with the president if he stated that the sky was blue or
water was wet.
IMO This is bad. It was bad back when Republicans were in the majority. And
it's equal bad now.I opposed it back then for the same reason I
oppose it today. Your party is not ALWAYS going to be in the majority. You may THINK they will never be in the minority position again, but if
history is any indicator of reality... It guarantees no party will stay in the
majority forever. So these rules you make to silence the minority today... will
for sure be used by another party to suppress YOU in the future.Democrats may think all that matters is today (and we are in the majority
today so that's all that matters)... but that is a VERY short-sighted way
to legislate.You should NEVER pass laws that you would not like if
you were in the minority (just because you are in the majority today).I still think the solution is not the nuclear-option to silence the minority.
The solution is to work on legislation until there is some WIN in it for both
sides (so they will vote for it willingly... not have it forced down their
If a nominated judge is not fit for office, does being appointed to that office
negate that fact? There is one simple test that would solve the
underlying problem and that is to reject any judge who has legislated from the
bench. The Constitution does not allow a judge to legislate. The President
knows that, but he still has nominated judges who have legislated from the
bench. He and they hold the Constitution in contempt when he and they have
taken oaths to defend the Constitution and then openly act to defy the
restrictions placed upon them by the Constitution.
How about we discuss the real issue?Can someone tell me what
reservations or issues that the GOP had with ANY of Obamas proposed appointees?
Did the GOP object to the specific people that Obama put forth for
confirmation? Was their something in these peoples past that cause the GOP
to object to them?Were they demonstrably too liberal?Anyone?And Mountainman. I agree with your post, but, this is how
politics has always worked. Both sides are hypocrites at various times. Are you
suggesting that the GOP, and you personally, do not do exactly the same
thing?Yes, it is pathetic that our politicians "blow with the
wind". But, be assured, the wind blows both sides fairly predictably. I
This issue is a case of Washington inside baseball pure and simple. The
business of governing, not playing parliamentary games that are not mentioned in
the Constitution to obstruct governing. The filibuster is an antique of history
that is only about half as old as the Republic. It is a dusty practice that is
long since used up its welcome. Who cares who did what to whom? Why should one
Senator have the right to put a hold on a nominee? Why does the majority not
rule in the Senate? Why is this a partisan issue? Both parties will benefit or
lose when as we all know the majority shifts with the changing of opinions among
the electorate. If the Republicans are so upset, I suggest they change the rule
back on the first day they again regain the majority...fat chance. Have we
become so twisted by gerrymandering and such games that change the fact that
majority rule is the stuff of all democratic systems world wide? This is a
government of, by, and for the People NOT of, by and for Senators.
It's interesting that the white house will not rule out "White House
refuses to rule out nuking filibuster rules for legislation too"So when did we slip into a monarchy, or is this the point at which there is no
@The Rock,You do realize that several of your proposed actions are
unconstitutional... don't you?
This is the natural escalation of the Democrat blockage of earlier Republican
nominees. However, in the past, Repuiblican Presidents would
withdraw controversial nominations, and replace them with more acceptable
selections, who would be passed.Note that much of the current
blockage of votes is simply that. However, on the other issues, Harry
Reid's destructive partisanship has resulted in the Senate not even calling
up for debate, let alone passage, of numerous important bills passed by the
House. Such as budgets, appropriations, Obamacare repeal or reform.
Reid's actions are essentially a one man filibuster against which there is
no defense, other than election of a Republican majority.Let's
be honest, Harry Reid is the real problem in the Senate, not Republican
"obstructionism."But a worse problem is that Obama is
nominating truly unqualified and dangerous people to important jobs. They may
fit his goal of destroying our country, or reshaping it into a Marxist-socialist
state, but are ultimately bad for everyone.I salute every Republican
who has been trying to save our country. I hope that they will not hesitate to
steamroller the Democrats when they return to power.
Notice there is no retort to the facts listed in the first post by scoundrel.
"My way or the highway" really? How about my way "every once in a
while", after all I'm the President and trying to constitutionally fill
vacancies. In addition this happened in a restrained way (even the
article points this out) and it didn't happen until the end of the fifth
year of an eight year term.
Funny how that goes. It's OK for reid to block every piece of legislation,
every budget, that the house has passed and reid has never let it come to the
floor of the senate for discussion or a vote.
Re "The Rock" at 6:49AM.Amen brother!And when
you begin investigating all that subversion, you could convene special
congressional hearings, maybe with a catchy name like, "The House
Un-American Activities Committee."You could subpeona movie stars
and college presidents and ask them all kinds of questions about their political
views and personal lives. You could demand to know who they know, who said what
to whom, and when, and where, etc. Make 'em sweat!Oh think of
the swelling patriotic pride as you grilled celebrities and college professors
about their political views!And if they don't cooperate, you
could blacklist them! They'll never work again!Think of the
political capital you'll earn by telling school teachers, librarians, food
safety inspectors, fire fighters, park rangers and police officers that their
retirement funds are being gutted and returned to the taxpayers! And loyalty oaths! Don't forget those!Yes, it would
guarantee GOP victories forever!By all means, go for it. Please.
The author of this editorial is wrong. Elections have consquences. Senator
Reid's removal of the filibuster was a reflection of the current state of
our goverment and our society. Extreme partianship is not going away. The
removal of the filibuster for preseditantal appointees will expediate an
administrations elected right to govern and let the old boy's club actually
debate more important issues.
Re: ". . . when Republicans do get in power, I - as a voter - would urge
them not to exact revenge by doing the very same thing back to the democrats . .
. ."It has already been done. There's no going back now.Democrats have implemented a genuine coup, making the ideas of half of
Americans irrelevant in politics. They did so to enable illegally and
unconstitutionally stacking the courts with radicals, to assure perpetual
liberal political power, notwithstanding its clear minority status in
America.It's very similar to options exercised by the
Bolsheviks, National Socialists, Red Chinese, North Korean communists, and Cuban
communists, when they declared opposition to be irrelevant and
counterrevolutionary.And, it's immensely sad that history will
record the Fort Sumter moment of the second American Civil War as the moment
Democrats seized power by exercising the nuclear option -- destroying more than
two centuries of concern for the half of the Nation that didn't vote for
the policies of the sitting President.
Imagine the outcry and hyperventilating from the left if the GOP had done this
when they were the majority in the Senate! In fact, all we have to do is go back
to 2005 and listen to the staunch opposition Obama, Reid and the Demos were
saying about this issue THEN! The left has tried to spin this as counting coup
on who tries to block who but the real issue here is a huge power grab. Before
they voted for it they were totally against it. Democrats are falsely spinning
this issue like Olympic gold medal figure skaters!
Does anyone seriously doubt for one moment that were the roles reversed, i.e. a
Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican president with minority
Democrats egregiously obstructing the President's ability to make
straightforward appointments to fill federal vacancies, that the Republicans
would have "gone nuclear" far, far sooner than the Democrats have in the
face of historic levels of obstruction? They'd have done it in a heartbeat
and boasted about it.The level of obstructionism from the
Republicans in the Senate is simply without precedent. For this minority to keep
these judicial positions vacant just so they can prove to their Tea Party base
that they are ideologically pure borders on criminal.
We have two issues at play here. Neither are good "governing"One is the so called "nuclear option" . One must recognize that they
did not change the overall rules on what is needed to pass legislation; only for
presidential appointments.Two is that the obstruction is being
misused. I can support reasonable opposition to a presidential appointee based
on substance. But that is not what is happening here. It is wrong is to block
viable appointees in an effort to change other "unrelated" issues.
Again, the GOP is using the wrong avenue to achieve a goal.While I
am not a fan of changing the rules, I am also opposed to blocking appointments
of qualified, reasonable people in an effort to win concessions on other,
totally unrelated areas.We have a totally dysfunctional government.
I agree with the posters above that the president's appointments were being
blocked unfairly.But I agree with the editorial that this will be
bad in the long run.The blockage has been caused by political rancor
- a "my way or the highway" attitude.I see this as only
making it worse over the long run.Short term gain. Long term
pain.A better way SHOULD have been found. The question is was there
enough goodwill for anyone to find such a compromise?
The Democrats are essentially immune to the "what goes around comes
around" argument in regards to the filibuster. The more genteel liberals
just don't have the temperaments to mount such a campaign of sabotage and
deceit against a future republican president. (Heck, they even worked with the
bumbling Bush/Cheney administration.)Its a false equivalency to
compare the two parties, Democrats have remained fairly moderate, while the
Republicans have unilaterally gone off the right wing rails.
Yet another example of one majority party using cutthroat politics to get what
they want, whether it's really wise or not. I don't call into
question their motives or their sincerity. But, there still is that *rule of
law* principle and that *separation of powers* thing that seem to get lost when
one party has a majority and abuses it's power. And the fact that it will
lead to more partisanship is appalling given the lack of cooperation already
demonstrated between both parties. But, when Republicans do get in
power, I - as a voter - would urge them not to exact revenge by doing the very
same thing back to the democrats, I would urge them to do what is right for the
country instead, whatever that may be at the time. *Turnabout is fair play* has
some truth to it, but it's a lousy way to govern. To both
parties, I would say, instead of this constant junior-high-ish bickering, work
to restore trust and confidence in the government. Take the higher road,
The "nuclear option" was the only option, imho. The Republicans have
filibustered nearly every Obama nominee, no matter how qualified. This nonsense
has to stop.Additionally, do you not think that the first thing
Republicans would do the moment they regain the Senate would be to change the
rules so as to prevent the Democrats from being as obstructinist as the
Republicans have been for the last 5 years?
As a conservative constitutionalist, If I were President with a Republican
house and Senate, but not enough to block a filibuster, I would eliminate the
filibuster and do the following:1. Pass a national right to work
law.2. Ban public employee labor unions.3. Freeze all accounts of
labor unions.4. Return all money from the former and now defunct public
employees labor unions to those who gave them the money.5. All employees
who were formerly forced to join a labor union but now leave would receive their
money back in the proportion they paid in. Forced dues for an organization you
oppose is wrong.6. Investigate all universities for discrimination against
conservatives. Universities that discriminate against conservatives in their
hiring practices would not be eligible for government funds and their students
would not be eligible for government loans or grants.7. Investigate the
major news networks and Hollywood for discrimination against conservatives.
Those guilty would lose the right to use the public airways and all credentials
to attend government press conferences and the like.Do this and the
Democrats could not ever win another election.
82 filibusters under Obama.86 filibusters under every other President in
American history combined.Something had to be done, this is a joke
and not a representative government when congress is more beholden to the gang
than their constituents.
Equally concerning is that key players from the president down to the majority
leader of the Senate were adamantly opposed to this kind of measure in 2005
before they were the governing party. They were against it before they were for
it! This is about dominating party control which the Founding Fathers knew that
we could not have and keep out Republic!As a citizenry we must make
sure there is balance in our government and vote these individuals out of office
in November 2014 if we do not want a dictatorship in this country!
“some recent judicial appointments”Some? There are 93
court vacancies with debate effectively dead. “Some” isn’t
quite the word you were looking for. The Democrats were tired of
the Republicans blocking President Barack Obama's nominations for pretty
much everything, and especially the D.C. Circuit. Good for them changing the