McConnell: No more circuit court nominees confirmed

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/mitch-mcconnell-obama-judges_n_7515820.html

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that he doesn't expect to confirm any of Obama's circuit court nominees for the remainder of his time in office, a blow to White House efforts to fill empty federal court seats despite working with a Republican-controlled Senate.

In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, McConnell was asked about judicial confirmations.


"So far, the only judges we’ve confirmed have been federal district judges that have been signed off on by Republican senators,” McConnell said. Asked if he expects that to be the case through 2016, McConnell said, "I think that's highly likely, yeah."

[MaxQue]

That's plain sedition.

[The Other Castro]

HPs gonna HP.

[JerryArkansas]

That's plain sedition.

Sadly it's not, he has every right to do it, and if the roles were reversed, I would expect Democrat's to do the same.  So, I'm not mad at him, I'm just surprised he decided to do it this early into the term.

[RFayette]

McConnell has been much more conciliatory lately so this is surprising

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, if Obama was dumb enough not to fill all remaining vacant offices during the lame duck session, he can't complain now.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There was always going to be escalation after Reid went for the nuclear option.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well, if Obama was dumb enough not to fill all remaining vacant offices during the lame duck session, he can't complain now.

The senate Democrats filled as much seats as they could (thanks to Ted Cruz's shenanigans too).
You can only blame them for not abolishing filibuster earlier.

[Torie]

Well maybe the Pubs can give the Dems a couple of circuit judges in exchange for the Seante Dems ceasing to plot and scheme to shut down the government via filibustering a budget vote while putting the blame for the shutdown on the Pubs. Nobody has ever suggested that Reid lacks Machiavellian skills. I put the blame on the Pubs for not jettisoning the filibuster option in its entirety when they won back the Senate, so they deserve what they get.

[DrScholl]

McConnell is trash, but that's nothing new.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Quite Frankly, the democrats deserve this. Reid was a terrible majority leader who spit in the face of actually getting anything done in divided government. He was just as bad as Boehner was when it came to facilitating compromise.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Quite Frankly, the democrats deserve this. Reid was a terrible majority leader who spit in the face of actually getting anything done in divided government. He was just as bad as Boehner was when it came to facilitating compromise.

MODERATE HERO ALERT!!!

[Ebsy]

I guess Cory Gardner and the Republican Senate have been better for bipartisan compromise and getting things done like the Denver Post said they would be!

[Mr. Reactionary]

Maybe they would if one of the nominees was Miguel Estrada. He's available since previous "sedition" kept him from a judgeship as well.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Set the stage up for the nxt election between Clinton and Jeb.

The same nominees will come back; hopefully under a Clinton presidency. Was gonna happen anyways when Loretta Lynch was blocked.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats were relentlessly attacked for not approving quite 100% of Bush's nominees. The double standards are completely ridiculous. Of course the Democrats deserve kick me signs for bending over backwards for the Republicans.

[ag]

That's plain sedition.

Sadly it's not, he has every right to do it, and if the roles were reversed, I would expect Democrat's to do the same.  So, I'm not mad at him, I'm just surprised he decided to do it this early into the term.

In 2007 and 2008 the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed 10 GWBush´s nominees for the Courts of Appeal. This was not viewed as anything unusual. Democrats were routinely confirming GWBush nominees in 2001-2, before that Republicans were approving Bill Clinton´s nominees after 1994, Dems were in majority in the Senate during the entire GHWBush presidency and during the last two years of Reagan presidency (during which time 17 CoA and one SCOTUS nominees got confirmed).

[CountryClassSF]

The Senate Democrat power-grabbers already packed the courts. If they want judges confirmed, start putting balance on the bench.

The Democrats chose to eliminate the filibuster for lower courts, then rammed through judges in the lame-duck after they were thrown out of office. Do they expect McConnell to give them flowers?

[Beet]

I would have more respect for this if they brought each nominee up for a vote and then voted them down. It's the Senate's constitutional role to confirm or reject the president's nominees.

[TDAS04]

Scumbag. 

[CountryClassSF]

Scumbag. 

Darn those checks and balances!

After the Democrats were so bipartisan and cordial ending the filibuster and ramming through judges in the lame-duck, what nerve!

[JerryArkansas]

That's plain sedition.

Sadly it's not, he has every right to do it, and if the roles were reversed, I would expect Democrat's to do the same.  So, I'm not mad at him, I'm just surprised he decided to do it this early into the term.

In 2007 and 2008 the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed 10 GWBush´s nominees for the Courts of Appeal. This was not viewed as anything unusual. Democrats were routinely confirming GWBush nominees in 2001-2, before that Republicans were approving Bill Clinton´s nominees after 1994, Dems were in majority in the Senate during the entire GHWBush presidency and during the last two years of Reagan presidency (during which time 17 CoA and one SCOTUS nominees got confirmed).

That's far off past now.  In this age of hyperpartisanship, we all need to expect to see much more of this. 

[Indy Texas]

I would have more respect for this if they brought each nominee up for a vote and then voted them down. It's the Senate's constitutional role to confirm or reject the president's nominees.

I agree. This whole issue could be avoided by all presidents from any party if the Senate were required to vote on a nominee within a certain timeframe after the president nominates a candidate - perhaps 90 days. It's really ridiculous that senators can arbitrarily refuse to vote on things when voting on things is what they are paid to do.

[Skill and Chance]

So from now on, you have to control the senate to get any high level judicial nominees confirmed at all?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So from now on, you have to control the senate to get any high level judicial nominees confirmed at all?

No, the Democrats will bend over backwards for the next Republican President, again.