How We Lost Our Big Chance at Progressive Control of the Federal Courts

[BanTheGOP]

I've been advocating the elimination and destruction of the abusive, murderous republican party since I came out of diapers in the early sixties. Up until 2008, we had no reasonable chance at doing so. But with the ascension of progressive politics and the election of Barack Obama, coupled with a virtual-Super Majority in the Senate and a significant majority in the House, and aided by a then-relatively progressive-friendly mainstream media, we had the best opportunity to solidify our progressive wave into the vernacular of US society, with the ensuing global implications that would have been significant, perhaps permanent.

But we let our guard down, and failed to take advantage of circumstances heretofore never availabe to progressives. Instead, we let the argument get sidetracked by the venomous republican bastards, and we took our EYE OFF THE BALL, which is entrenched progressive policies and intitiatives. To this end, the Tea Party came alive and is now threatening to dismantle our achievements and permanently segregate our movement into the irrelevant abyss of history.

When President Obama was elected, I outlined several things that we needed to do on an IMMEDIATE basis as a progressive presence. While many of our agenda items became implemented, our so-called democratic members flinched so much that our policies were significantly watered down. Yes, we got historic legislation passed, legislation is only half the battle. We needed not just to pass it, but to ensure it STAYED passed by making sure our progressive legislators kept their constituents on point. Obviously, ensuring the populace is aware of why we are doing the legislation is important.

Alas, we dropped the ball and let the repukes try to manipulate the jobs issue. Their policies started everything, and now they are trying to put the onus of the tragic results of their policies on the Democrats, particularly President Obama. Unfortunately, we've been lackadaisical in getting our message across with regard to our own progressive agenda. Part of it is understandable, using the cornered varmint analogy. But one key element had been neglected.

In my opinion, the most significant lack of achievement has been the missed opportunity in selecting federal judges. Notably, we had over forty vacancies that could have been filled while we had that significant congressional advantage. I have stated that we should have filled those spots IMMEDIATELY. And fill them not just with judges who, in the past, have ruled in a progressive, constitutional manner, but even more: with YOUNG progressive legal professionals who didn't necessarily have to have had actual judicial experience, but with a brilliant mindset toward social and economic justice. In short, we could have put in over 40 federal-level judgeships with 25-35 year old progressive-minded legal scholars, cementing the 3rd Branch of Government for at LEAST half a century.

And yes, I blame myself to a certain degree. I could have hammered the administration more forcibly with my recommendations. I should have peppered each presidential aide on a daily, if not weekly basis to hammer this point home. In short, having a judicial lock on progressive-minded judgments would have been the most significant legacy of Obama's presidency, which would have given the US Constitution the BEST chance to succeed against the capitalist, ruinous goals of the fascist right ring armada.

Imagine 40 of our brightest progressive minds at various federal levels from 2010 to 2060. We HAD THAT CHANCE. No matter WHAT any political winds blow in the executive and legislative branches, we would have had the ability to make policy through progressive judicial fiat.

And to me, this is probably our biggest loss of all. No matter how the 2012 election season plays out, and no matter how much we can fight against the legal ability of the republican party to participate in the American political process, this lack of controlling the most important branch of government, the judicial branch, will most likely forever be out of our reach.

Unless we can invalidate the republican financial apparatus.

I rest my case.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Link? Or did you work for Obama?

[BanTheGOP]

4. What link do I need? This is a common-sense opinion

I don't need no stinkin' link for such an obvious issue here.

[HomerRamone]

10. This is under "Editorials & Other Articles". Was this published somwhere?

And is the OP the author who implies that he had special access to the Administration?

[frazzled]

2. Senate Republicans were blocking them from the get-go

So the late start had little to do with the lack of ability to fill those vacancies.

Well before the 2010 elections, this article appeared:

A determined Republican stall campaign in the Senate has sidetracked so many of the men and women nominated by President Barack Obama for judgeships that he has put fewer people on the bench than any president since Richard Nixon at a similar point in his first term 40 years ago.

The delaying tactics have proved so successful, despite the Democrats' substantial Senate majority, that fewer than half of Obama's nominees have been confirmed and 102 out of 854 judgeships are vacant.

Forty-seven of those vacancies have been labeled emergencies by the judiciary because of heavy caseloads.

Even some Republican senators have complained.

...

White House counsel Bob Bauer and progressive groups squarely blame Republicans.

The Senate GOP is obstructing "confirmations across the board, even forcing noncontroversial nominees who passed committee with overwhelming bipartisan support to wait months for a floor vote," Bauer said.

Marge Baker, executive vice president of the liberal People for the American Way, said that stalling votes on judges is "part and parcel of the general obstruction we're seeing right now."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has acknowledged that his strategy is partly payback for Democrats' blocking some Bush appointees.

But McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the responsibility for the lack of confirmations lies with Obama, who nominated just 33 people to judgeships in 2009, and Reid, who controls the Senate calendar.

"We can't confirm what's not there," Stewart said.

But Republican senators have forced postponements of hearings and votes in the Judiciary Committee and used their power under the chamber's rules to block any easy route to full Senate votes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/06/obama-judicial-appointees_n_706590.html

Finally, federal judges are confirmed solely by a majority in the Senate (the House has nothing to do with it). Obama has nominated hundreds of judges. Few of them have been confirmed. Here's a chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointments

[BanTheGOP]

3. And whose fault is that?

Why didn't Harry Reid, Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan, and Steering and Outreach Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow pursue this issue when they had the chance? Keep in mind that Obama should have gotten it through to Harry Reid about the importance of this very issue, and the Senate HAD the advantage at that time.

Sorry, this is not an excuse. The progressives dropped the ball on this one.

[AndyTiedye]

6. "Pursue the Issue" How?

We really have no leverage at all over these Republicans.

[frazzled]

7. How does Reid stop the process of "anonymous holds" being placed on nominations?

A single senator can place a hold and prevent the Senate from voting on a nominee who has made it out of committee. And this has happened repeatedly. I agree that Senate Democrats haven't made this enough of a priority or squawked enough (though they have squawked some, if you've been listening). But the preponderance of blame still has to go to the Republicans, who have willfully stalled and blocked scores of nominations.

It's true that we ourselves need to make this an issue. But as I explained, it didn't matter that we were in the majority. The minority has the total ability to block these nominations.

[BanTheGOP]

11. Holds not necessary if we have the majority

In January, the Senate voted 92–4 to pass a resolution that would require any hold to be entered into the Congressional Record two days after it is placed, unless the hold is lifted within the two-day period. If the Senator that placed the hold does not come forward or remove the hold within the two day period, the hold will be attributed to the party leader, or the Senator that placed the hold on behalf of the "secret" Senator.

However, that STILL doesn't stop the fact that the progressives would have meant business, and that if there had been anyone in the senate holding things back, they would have been VILIFIED with no amount of "anonoymous holds" to be allowed. So no, I don't buy this. Not one bit. Pure and simple.

[truedelphi]

9. Some of these Democrats, like Harry Reid, should not have

A "D" after their name, but a great big "C" for collusion.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Our "Supermajority" Was, In Fact, Virtual

The Repiglickins had the votes to stop us cold, and they did.

[The Wizard]

8. The lesson learned

Don't show up to a gun fight wearing boxing gloves.