Summary
Two Democratic-appointed federal judges have unretired after the 2024 election, preventing Trump from appointing replacements.
The judges’ decisions were influenced by the Senate’s “blue slip” policy, which requires support from home-state senators for presidential nominees.
Republican leaders, including Mitch McConnell, have criticized the judges’ actions as partisan, while Democrats are rushing to confirm as many judges as possible before Trump takes office.
18 Comments
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee · 73 pts · 1y
I refuse to be happy about the democrats doing so little that we’re stuck relying on
ancient judges appointed by centrists clinging to life and their career long enough that maybe the next democratic administration will get around to actually appointing leftist judges. It’s better than Trump’s appointments would be but not nearly good enough.
hddsx@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 1y
Judges should be nonpartisan
themeatbridge@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 1y
Nothing is non-partisan. Conservatives attack reality, truth, and science, because these compete with their worldview.
hddsx@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 1y
If you look at my post history, I consider(ed) myself a non-Christian conservative.
I just want a functioning government, man. The only way to fix conservatives is to have a leftist party so center is center again.
My views haven’t changed. I shouldn’t be aligning more and more with democrats.
And Donald Trump should not be president of the US. Mitch McConnell violates senate norms. The federal government is a laughing stock. Instead of subverting laws as a norm, we need to enforce existing laws.
apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 1y
In a world where every last thing is political, the non-partisan person is merely hypothetical.
6gybf@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 1y
Put another way: non-partisan is a political stance
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee · 28 pts · 1y
My original comment was too glib so here’s the truth. So long as the right is viciously opposed to democratic norms, consensus based governance, and the rule of law when it suits their needs, we don’t have the luxury of purity tests. Judges aren’t non-partisan. Nothing is non-partisan.
Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 1y
Tell that to Republicans and who they put on the SC. Yes judges SHOULD be nonpartisan, but the highest court in the land is a fucking cesspool of corruption. Any judiciary left should be protected against their tyranny.
tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1y
Supreme Court Republicans of the United States
SCROTUS
hddsx@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 1y
Yeah at the very list ACB and the boofing guy should get gone
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1y
Probably realized with 42 vacancies and Biden only nominating 12 of them, that Schumer and Biden just aren't motivated enough to fill their seats even if they leave today.
someguy3@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 1y
Ah the good old "Dems just need to want it more".
Auli@lemmy.ca · -4 pts · 1y
Well their is the norms of not appointing judges on a year of an election. Oh yah trump totally respected that.
AbidanYre@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
That norm was also made up by McConnell because he didn't want Obama to replace Scalia.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
That was never a norm...
That was the party betting that enough SC seats up for grabs might get people to vote for Hillary, but they were wrong
Obama could seat someone on the legal rationale that while the Senate has the option to approve SC picks, there's nothing that says they have to. So he was taking refusal of a confirmation as implicit confirmation and seating him.
Instead of, you know, just accepting that a SC seat was stolen.
radiohead37@lemmynsfw.com · 3 pts · 1y
There is zero chance the Supreme Court would have sided with this approach of bypassing the senate.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
It's not bypassing them.
Senate is entitled to a vote, but literally nothing says a vote needs to be held, just that they can.
They had a year, and didn't.
There's no such thing as a SC pocket veto.
Sometimes I forget that was almost a decade ago, but this was widely talked about back then. It's not something I just thought of.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-could-obama-bypass-the-senate-on-garland-nomination
He also could have done a recess appointment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/how-obama-could-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-and-why-itll-never-happen/
If you believe nothing could have been done so it was pointless to try...
Well. We saw how that's worked out, didn't we?
someguy3@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
That about says it all. This is a fringe legal theory and not how it actually works. You're spreading misinformation just to say "Dems bad".