Obama appointments already pulling appeals courts to the left

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Bandit99, Aug 31, 2016.

  1. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    I saw this in the headlines this morning on FOX and thought it was important enough to ensure everyone had a look at it. Basically, it is explaining why Obama isn't so concern or even upset about not being able to appoint someone to the Supreme Court because he has already loaded the lower courts which in truth tip the scales greatly. It's a good article, rather long, but lots of good facts to worry over especially "The president has successfully seated a total of 329 federal judges during his two terms – all of them, lifetime appointments." I did not realize even the lower courts were appointed by the president. I am not in agreement that this should fall to the President...not that it matters what I think but... Anyway, he has already got what he was after.
    President Obama may be struggling to tilt the balance of the Supreme Court – but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t already made his mark on the bench.

    The president, over the course of his two terms, has appointed hundreds of justices to the lower federal courts, leading to a majority of appeals courts now dominated by Democratic picks. While those nomination battles aren’t nearly as high-profile as they are for the high court, the impact of the appointments is just as pronounced.

    “It's often overlooked, but nominees to the lower courts ... are often one of the most important legacies a president leaves behind,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center.

    The Fourth Circuit, which sits just one level below the Supreme Court and is headquartered in Richmond, Va., is a prime example.

    Previously viewed as one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country, it has drifted significantly to the left, with Democratic appointees now outnumbering their Republican counterparts two-to-one.

    That circuit not only recently struck down North Carolina’s voter ID law, but also ruled in favor of a transgender student seeking to use high school bathroom facilities matching the student’s gender identity rather than biological gender.

    The tilt on the federal appeals courts – particularly as the Supreme Court, which takes relatively few cases as it is, remains split 4-4 – is a trend that worries conservatives.

    The Supreme Court takes very few cases, there's not an opportunity to correct every error made -- and when you have activist judges at the lower levels of the federal judiciary, that can have a damaging effect on [the] American system and rule of law,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director at the Judicial Crisis Network.

    The president has successfully seated a total of 329 federal judges during his two terms – all of them, lifetime appointments.

    When Obama took office, only three appellate courts had more Democrat-appointed judges than Republican-appointed judges.

    Now, nine of the 13 circuits do.

    The U.S. Supreme Court hears only 70-80 cases a year, making the lower courts even more important as they handle hundreds of thousands of cases each year, often representing the final word on critical issues.

    And it’s not just the cases they decide. It’s how they decide them, crafting the framework for how legal disputes will be handled going forward.

    “President Obama's nominees to the Supreme Court, in particular, will be a legacy for him not just because they may cast more liberal votes than justices a conservative president would've put on, but also because of the way they talk about the law and the Constitution,” Wydra said.

    Obama also worked to remake the D.C. Circuit, by forcing through three nominees, with the help of then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who changed the rules of the Senate in order to make that happen.

    One of the key issues the D.C. Circuit considers is the use of executive power.

    Meanwhile, Obama’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Merrick Garland, remains stalled in the Senate. However, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Monday that if Hillary Clinton wins the November election, it’s possible the Senate could actually move on Garland’s nomination –- if a “large number” of senators pressed Grassley to do so.
    3M-TA3 likes this.
  2. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd

    This notion that a federal court could act as a check and balance to the other branches of federal government was wacky anyway...akin to letting the inmates run the asylum.
  3. marlas1too

    marlas1too Monkey+++

    welcome to the USSA
  4. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    You know @chimo you are spot-on about this! Think about this for a moment...So, three branches of government: Legislative, Judicial and Executive. Legislative makes the laws, Judicial interprets the laws and, of course, Executive enforces the laws - at least this is what I was taught numerous years ago. But, we are 'assuming' that the appointed judges who are suppose to hold in-check the Legislative branch (checks and balances) will interpret the law fairly and correctly without bias but...what if they don't? What if they have their own agenda and the hell with the law(s)? They have life long positions so can't remove them nor retire them. The only thing that can be done is have Legislation repeal the law and try making a new law that the Judges will interpret as the Legislative body desires. It truly a whacky system because you cannot take the Human element out of it. The only thing is that I am not sure there is anything better... Personally, I am becoming more and more convinced that these judges should only be appointed for a 10-year term...but that's my personal opinion.
    chimo likes this.
  5. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd

    Term limits for appointed and elected offices might help, but more importantly we gotta enforce limits on the powers of all branches, as per the plain language of the Constitution.

    Show me where in the Constitution the Judicial is given the power to "interpret" the law? It doesn't. IMO Judicial power is that of resolving disputes as per the law...not interpreting the law into whatever they feel like based on all kinds of wacky BS, including playing swami and trying to read the intent of the authors of those laws (in many cases when they are still freakin alive and can be ASKED what was intended, in those cases where language in ambiguous). The Constitution, unlike most of the laws passed since, is pretty plain in its language....it doesn't need to be interpreted, it merely needs to be FOLLOWED...and if you don't like what it says...ask the legislature to amend it, as per the process outlined within that same Constitution! Too hard? Tough petunias...it's supposed to be hard...to prevent do-gooders and criminals with delusions of monarchy from willy-nilly changing the supreme law of the land for no valid reason and without the consent of their bosses...the governed.

    I'm frankly tired of the Judicial branch applying powers that the Constitution does not grant them to effectively legislate from the bench by making up new meanings to plain language.

    Sorry, for the rant...I like what you wrote, but some words and concepts set me off into arrogant constitutional purist a-hole mode, it's not directed at you. ;)
    Bandit99, Mountainman and ghrit like this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary