Warnings of Trumpism 'Forever' as Senate GOP Rams Through 44 Lifetime Judges in One Day

[workinclasszero]

"Too many of these nominees have spent their careers opposing the rights of women, minorities, the LGBTQ community, and Americans who need affordable healthcare."

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer Published on Friday, February 08, 2019

With the nation's eyes largely elsewhere in a sea of distraction on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee quietly advanced 44 of President Donald Trump's federal judicial nominees in what civil rights defenders denounced as a "monster markup" that threatens to leave the president's dangerous ideological footprint on the nation's courts for generations to come.

Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the move "disturbingly exemplifies the joint Senate Republican-Trump administration effort to distort our federal judiciary and roll back our civil and human rights."

Gupta also accused Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee's chairman, of defying "the committee rules and basic fairness in jamming through more than 40 nominees for lifetime appointments, many of whom have a demonstrated hostility to our rights."

"They want to see Roe v. Wade overturned or narrowed into oblivion, LGBT people permanently consigned to the margins of American life, and constitutional and civil right encroached on by the religious preference of a vocal few."
—Sen. Mazie Hirono


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/02/08/warnings-trumpism-forever-senate-gop-rams-through-44-lifetime-judges-one-day

[manor321]

1. Another opportunity to thank Sarandon, Jenner, Stein and Nader!

[workinclasszero]

3. Yes

[Apollyonus]

19. You're missing the biggest names of them all

plus the Russian bots and trolls who damaged Hillary before and after the convention.

[ProudLib72]

34. That fellow whose name must not be mentioned or you'll get a hide?

Sometimes a Dem, most of the time not.

[Apollyonus]

37. You're smart and wise n/t

[Beaverhausen]

38. Do you seriously think even one person changed their vote...

...simply because of Sarandon?

[Fuzzpope]

2. How many fucking judges

Do these assholes get to appoint??

I've lost count, man. Feels like a million by now.

[workinclasszero]

5. Enough along with the GOP packed SCOTUS

to make sure Americans will be trying to survive in the Republic of Gilead for the next 60 years or so, elections and public wishes be damned!

[mtngirl47]

9. Because McConnell blocked Obama's Judicial nominees

there were *lots* of vacancies when Trump took office. I can't find exact numbers...but I remember one nominee who withdrew his name so he could move on with his life after waiting around for a year to even get a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[In It to Win It]

21. I read that there are 149 vacancies left with 60 currently pending

[onenote]

23. To be more precise

Focusing only on district courts and appellate courts:

There are 678 authorized spots for district court judges. Obama filled 268 of them. Thus far Trump has filled 53. Another 34 are teed up after yesterday's hearing and 13 haven't made it through committee. After that, there are 77 spots for which no nomination has been submitted.

For the appeals court, there are 179 authorized spots. Obama filled 55 of them. Trump has filled 30, with 6 more teed up by yesterday's committee action and 3 that haven't made it through committee. There are no other vacancies for him to try to fill on the appeals court at this time.

Some additional data:
At the beginning of Obama's first term, there were 13 appeals court vacancies. At the end of his second term there were 17 vacancies. In between, as noted, he filled 55 vacancies.

At the beginning of Obama's first term, there were 44 district court vacancies. At the end of his second term there were 88 vacancies. In between, as noted, he filled 278 vacancies.

[theboss]

4. And here is why Mitch McConnell won't say a word......

He's playing an entirely different ballgame, and he's been playing it since 2008. Trump is just a vessel here.

[bigbrother05]

8. Exactly, he held back way more than Garland

He was delaying Obama nominees at all levels of the Federal court system.

[theboss]

10. Which forced Harry Reid into nuking the filibuster.....

And here we are.

You almost have to admire the sheer chutzpah.

[Scurrilous]

6. "b..b..b..but her emails!!"

[SWBTATTReg]

7. Why are there so many positions open if they are lifetime positions? NT

[Hekate]

20. The GOP refused to fill judgeships for Obama all down the line, so there's a big backlog...

Also, people do age and die. But mostly it's because the GOP planned it that way.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

11. K&R for a 5th rec n/t

[Whiskeytide]

12. This has fundamentally changed ...

... our country. And very much in an under the radar way. We won’t appreciate how much so for years.

[RHMerriman]

14. I could make an argument that an appointing authority that

I could make an argument that an appointing authority that gained that authority via criminal activities would negate all following appointments - akin to fruit of the poisonous tree.

Judges can be impeached; they can also be assigned to what amounts to the rubber gun squad, depending on the wishes of their seniors ...

If the Trump Administration ends the way I think we all expect it will, it is also true that anyone appointed during the Administration will be spending the remainder of their professional lives with a target permanently tattooed on their backs. Robert Bork is an obvious example from his actions during the Nixon Administration, although he was not a judicial appointment.

Is that a simple path to reconstructing the judiciary after Trump goes to hell? No, but it is a realistic one. Memories are long in Washington, and in the legal community.

As has been said, "everything Trump touches dies."

[onenote]

24. You could make that argument, but no one will care

You don't have standing to make it as a legal matter.
And if you did, no court would agree with you.

[RHMerriman]

25. Which is why Justice Bork was confirmed in 1987...

Which is why Justice Bork was confirmed in 1987...

Oh wait, he wasn't.

in 2009, the House impeached U.S. District Court Judge Samuel B. Kent on charges of sexual assault, obstructing an official proceeding, and making false statements. Kent resigned before the Senate tried the charges. In 2010, the House impeached U.S. District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. on allegations of bribery and making false statements. The Senate convicted Porteous. Of the 15 federal judicial impeachments in history, the most common charges were making false statements, favoritism toward litigants or special appointees, intoxication on the bench, and abuse of the contempt power.

Given the reality that every single Trump appointment who makes it to the bench is going to be under incredible scrutiny, and any number of potential charges along the line of making false statements or offering judicial favors in return for the appointments are possible, it's entirely likely any Trump appointee will find themselves in the crosshairs of any number of potential accusers, from the US attorney's office in a future Democratic administration down to local prosecutors, local bar associations, and good government organizations quite capable of mounting the campaigns necessary to force a resignation, impeachment, early retirement, or any one of a number of other potential remedies.

You may wish it to be otherwise, but if wishes were whores, Donny Trump would be happy.

[FreepFryer]

29. +1. Pessimistic cries and denials aside, judges can - and will - be impeached.

Do you really think this crop of hateful anti-American judges are going to observe ethics rules any better than the criminals who appointed them?

In the absence of adequate oversight qualification, they will abuse, and they will lose, whatever power is granted them.

We will see to it.

[RHMerriman]

30. True ... and onenote's opinion is just that...

True ... and onenote's opinion is just that...

My expectation is the Trump Administration will be exposed as criminals without peer in US history; one will have to go back to the Walkers' treason on behalf of the Soviets, Arnold's treason on behalf of the British and Wilkinson's on behalf of the Spanish to find something equivalent ...

I will not be surprised if the reaction of the American people, once the depth of what occurred is clear, will require remedies along the lines of those used for the Rosenbergs.

[Whiskeytide]

31. Impeaching a federal judge is rare. It is only done ...

... in pretty extreme situations. Ideological differences would never be sufficient grounds. And don’t forget that many have received bi-partisan confirmations.

trump has appointed hundreds of judges at all levels of the federal judiciary. Even impeaching 10 or 20 - if that could be done (and realistically it can’t) would not make a significant difference over all.

It was a judicial coup, and it worked beautifully. It will be with us for 30+ years.

[RHMerriman]

33. Understood, but there comes a time when every elected or appointed faces reality...

Understood, but there comes a time when every elected or appointed faces reality...

Will it be easy to get rid of these crooks? No, but justice rarely is...

[MarcA]

13. Judges in special jurisdiction courts serve for 10 year terms. Also,

any judge other than SCOTUS(?) can be removed for lack of "good behavior".
Watch their decisions and when Dems have President, Senate and House
take no prisoners and remove them. Eventually, have All Fed Judges subject
to an Ethics Commission and Retention Elections. No more Monarchy.

[onenote]

16. Wrong.

The only way to remove a federal judge is through impeachment. Majority of the House; 2/3 of the Senate.

[MarcA]

17. Not So. The Constitution does not equate Impeachment and

lack of Good Behavior requirements. Basically, Congress can enact procedures
that, as long as they adhere to the Necessary and Proper Clause, have any
Federal Judge removed for defined lack of Good Behavior in any Court of Law.

[onenote]

18. Sorry. But no one thinks that. No one.

The only way a lifetime appointed judge has ever been removed from office is through impeachment and that isn't changing no matter how many stars you wish upon.

In the records of the Constitutional Convention, it is clear that the Good Behavior Clause was viewed simply as an expression of life tenure as opposed to a distinct standard for removal. The only effort to change this language reflects this understanding. On August 27, 1787, John Dickinson of Delaware moved to add, after the words "good Behaviour," the words "provided that they may be removed by the Executive on the application [by] the Senate and House of Representatives." The Dickinson amendment was voted down by a vote of 7–1. The Dickinson amendment is interesting because it would have effectively created a different standard and system of removal for federal judges. Notably, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania objected that such a change would defeat the intent of creating an independent judiciary. He noted that it would be a "contradiction in terms to say that the Judges hold their offices during good behavior, and yet be removable without a trial." Morris's reference to a "trial" indicates an understanding that such a proceeding is addressed elsewhere in the Constitution. (The debate over the impeachment standard would occur only two weeks later on September 8, 1787.)

[theboss]

28. You just made that up

That’s not the law.

[onenote]

15. Numbers:

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2019, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The number of judges authorized to sit on the US District Courts is 678 (this does not include judges who take senior status).
Obama had 268 District Court judges confirmed.

Trump has, thus far, had 53 of his District Court nominees confirmed. Another 34 had their nomination approved in Committee yesterday. My understanding is that these 34 judges were, with one or two possible exceptions, nominees who had their names put forward during the 115th Congress but who weren't confirmed before the 115th adjourned.

At the appellate level, there are 179 authorized judgeships. Obama had 55 appeals court judges confirmed. Trump has had 30 confirmed so far, with six more advanced in committee yesterday.

At the Appellate Court level, I believe there are no other nominees pending in committee and just three other vacancies for which no nominee has been put forward.

At the District Court level, I believe there are 13 other nominees still pending that haven't yet been advanced by committee and 77 more vacancies for which no one has been nominated.

[Initech]

22. Fuck the religious right!!!

[Rorey]

26. Maybe they did it so quickly because they know

-45's days are numbered? Maybe they want to get them in before President Pelosi takes over? (Wishful thinking, but still....)

[Garrett78]

27. I hope that someday we take John Dingell's advice and do away with the Senate.

And the electoral college.

And greatly expand the House.

In the meantime, we are an anti-democratic nation.

[bdamomma]

32. Can't we govern

by the House and Senate? tRump has made a mockery of the Presidency.

[Garrett78]

36. The population disparities between states have long reached a point where the Senate is an absurdity

Last edited Sat Feb 9, 2019, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

It's only getting worse. Before long, 2/3rds of the country will be represented by less than 1/3rd of the Senate.

[Initech]

35. That's what this whole administration is about.

It doesn't matter who is in charge. The Christian right wants a totalitarian theocracy and they're going to get it whether we want it or not. And they love Trump because he's pig headed enough that as long his ass gets kissed, he'll do anything you want. So he will just ram through judicial nominees without reading them because they want absolute power. The courts are the biggest prize of this whole shitty experiment.