Instead of just stopping qualified nominees cold without any thought, maybe Senate GOPers should ask: How much worse would the new nominees be than someone like Souter?

And yes, it’s gotten to the point that I would rather see *No* confirmed judges and a complete collapse of the system rather than a system run by Obama appointees.

Let it Burn – because I, and the people I care about, are going to burn if Obama gets his way. I like my chances better in the rebuilding.

Bush’s second-term appointees (including two to the Supreme Court) proceeded without obstruction.

Um…last I heard, Sotomayor and Kagan are sitting Supreme Court justices.

The handcuffs you put on Barack Obama now will still be worn by the next GOP Commander in Chief.

Jazz Shaw

Those “handcuffs” are used – they’ve been worn by Republican presidents since the mid-80′s.

The “Gang of Fourteen” deal only got certain Bush 43 nominees a confirmation vote – other nominations died.

This is the judicial confirmation world the Democrats created. They had no problem with it when they used these tactics against Republican nominees; they get to live in it now.

Want it to stop? Fine – next time there’s a Republican president, the Democrats can give every one of his / her nominees a confirmation vote. When the Democrats demonstrate they’ve abandoned these tactics, then we can move on.

Until then, no.

The real problem here is that Democrats decided to scorch the Earth on Republican nominees and don’t like Republicans returning the favor.

Here’s hilarity – Joyner:

Senate Republicans aren’t standing firm against radical judges but against Democratic judges. And, no, the two aren’t synonymous

I have 70 years of proof. What evidence do you provide?

Ed Whelan at NRO has been keeping judicial confirmation data for a few years now because this was constantly put forth 2010-2011, and now only occasionally. This isn’t the first time from Toobin, but Whelan has refuted most, if not all, assertions. Not sure if he has any posts for Toobin’s current article. Toobin is simply using his pulpit for a New York lawyer (career government is notable). I assume he’ll get an interview for this slobber.

Suggestions? Yes!! Reaffirm the correct abilities of Article 3 courts. At base, they are merely arbitrators of cases before them, criminal and civil (in Law and Equity). They have no legislative authority. A Power ceded to itself is not valid. That is why the courts have lifetime appointments (apolitcal); otherwise they need to come up for review. There was never an intent for a Court to affect society by case law. Enter, the last 70 years…

There is a reason that left-wingers, pinkos of every stripe, anti-Americans, counter-culturalists, etc. go to Law School and send their fellows there as well. How many activists have Law Degrees? Probably 80% at least do, followed by economic degrees. Reaffirm the U.S. Constitution, and most problems will be solved. Unfortunately, the masses are complacent with all our goodies; therefore, this won’t be a “winning” argument, but it will be correct and true.

City, County, State governments…get em…keep em. Be the Bulwark.

The idea that we must now defer to neo-Marxist judges, whose view of the Constitution is that of a blank canvas upon which they are free to smear fecal graffiti, just because the Democrats created a situation of empty benches is just preposterous.

You are a jackwagon!

I have figured out what you are. You – and some of your friends – don’t belong here you elitist dilettante.

It’s a horrible, unconstitutional idea – in my opinion, anyway – but to be fair, it was written for her boss to support his position. Other than that, I’m not sure how “unqualified” she is.

So it’s just a matter of how much the time costs.

There is no “let it burn” path available. If you don’t have the courts, the system breaks down.

The courts made mockeries of themselves through their refusal to even hear anything about the Indonesian’s lack of eligibility. Then they compounded things by rubber-stamping some of the most egrigious violations of the Constitution one could even imagine such as with that incredibly lunatic feral government bailout of GM (which was determined to be a “toxic asset” ripe for TARP monies) and the trampling of the integrity of contracts in letting the secured bondholders be screwed royally – to the benefit of the unions and politicos.

Finally, Benedict Roberts burned down the last shred of integrity that the judiciary might have had left. After his insane decision there’s nothing left of the system – not to anyone with even a smidgeon of rationality. The judicial system is nothing but a big, bad joke populated with mental midgets, nutcases, and criminals.

There is no “let it burn” path available. If you don’t have the courts, the system breaks down.

Assuming the system wasn’t broken down to begin with, which is utter naievety.

Let it burn anyway.

There is no “let it burn” path available. If you don’t have the courts, the system breaks down.

Whahuh??? The system breaking down is the let it burn option.

It’s a horrible, unconstitutional idea – in my opinion, anyway – but to be fair, it was written for her boss to support his position.

Yeah … she was just “following orders” to help a politician violate his oath and destroy the Constitution. No big deal … nothing to hold against her. We’re lucky that Cuomo didn’t ask her to rub out anyone, though if she had, it would only be “following orders” … not like she actually disliked the people she snuffed …

WTFFF, man?!

We think that since it has been a great run for all these years it is impossible we could experience real hardship like the end of Rome or the fall of Germany or the long slow death of England, where they now dance to the formation of the NHS – which repays them by killing its patients with poor care.

It can fall to total mayhem. The dark ages can return. Just because it sounds crazy – doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.

Sucks to be her. And it wasn’t the GOP who started the notion of filibustering judicial nominees either. It was our statist friends of the left. Too bad.

I realize those opinion pieces will rub most Republicans and conservatives the wrong way because of the name and party of the person doing the appointing these days, but it’s hard to deny that this is a problem. We do need to keep the benches filled, and there will only be one President at a time doing it. The handcuffs you put on Barack Obama now will still be worn by the next GOP Commander in Chief. It’s difficult to imagine a way out of this mess, though.

It’s not that difficult to imagine a way out: judicial elections.

Putting up 1/3rd of SCOTUS and lower-level Federal courts for election alongside every midterm election would do the trick.

tdarrington on March 16, 2013 at 6:30 PM

LOL! Very good.

thatsafactjack on March 16, 2013 at 6:23 PM

A crisis of crises.

“Traffic Crisis Strikes DC!”

While I’m sure that we could use more judges, and perhaps it would be handy if we could get them to the bench a little faster, this isn’t the issue that I’m attempting to address.

I’m addressing the fact that we, the public…you remember us?…the electorate?… are becoming increasingly desensitized to the every increasing number of crises, some real, some manufactured, some incidental, some trivial, which assail us every day.

It’s much like “…the war on ________.” There’s another one every day. Some important, some trivial, some manufactured… almost none of which are real wars.

It won’t be long before the government and the media cry ‘crisis’ one time too many… and we all just shrug it off as yet another in the seemingly never ending line of crises.

I wonder what the new term will be to get our attention, win our sympathy, or focus our ire.