Please Contribute Today!
Woo hoo!!
Less than $6.7k to Go!
We can do this!!
FReepers ROCK!!
Posted on 05/28/2013 6:26:35 AM PDT by onyx
WASHINGTON —
President Obama will soon accelerate his efforts to put a lasting imprint on the country’s judiciary by simultaneously nominating three judges to an important federal court, a move that is certain to unleash fierce Republican opposition and could rekindle a broader partisan struggle over Senate rules.
In trying to fill the three vacancies on the 11-member United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit at once, Mr. Obama will be adopting a more aggressive nomination strategy. He will effectively be daring Republicans to find specific ground to filibuster all the nominees.
White House officials declined to say who Mr. Obama’s choices will be ahead of an announcement that could come this week, but leading contenders for the spots appear to include Cornelia T. L. Pillard, a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center; David C. Frederick, who often represents consumers and investors at the Supreme Court; and Patricia Ann Millett, a veteran appeals lawyer in Washington. All three are experienced lawyers who would be unlikely to generate controversy individually.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Right. Reid will go for it over this.
For starter’s:
Pillard has worked at the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Hard job for Obama, finding three corrupt judges at the same time.
Oh, dear God.
I hope he’s under indictment by then.
And I must add that in no is my disappointment limited those that stayed home or voted third party....Plenty of blame to go around!
I blame 50% of my fellow Catholics that voted for Obama,in spite of his stand on marriage,birth control,and abortion. I blame the 70% of the Jewish voters that voted for him,in spite of all evidence that he is no friend to Israel. I blame Chris Christie for his bear-hugging photo shoot with Obama;and I blame Romney himself,who after a strong first debate,tried to run out the clock as Obama made the election about Obamaphones and free birth control for Sandra Fluke!
LOL.
Not in radical Left circles.
He’s got a thing for lesbos.
You’re right. We should check the marital status of the two women!
Just what we need a brainwashed aclu lawyer on an important court.Looks like we have the numbers to filibuster inthe Senate if dingy can’t change the rules. Question is what kindo of mood will Mcgeezer be in that week?
hahahah!...gotta laugh at that...more of a nervous titter, really, because this is another 0bama in-your-face move.
Hoping he’s headed for the big fall.
It actually IS sufficient grounds, because Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to “act as President” - since he “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th, 2009 and 2013. The only person Constitutionally qualified to nominate judges/justices is Joe Biden. And this would be a darn good time and venue for bringing forward that issue, because the evidence we have says that Obama has no legally valid birth certificate from Hawaii. And there are opportunities now for the members of the Senate who recognize how dangerous this regime is to actually work to bring it to its knees. If they dare.
We need to be praying for them because the enemy they (and we) are facing is not human.
Obama never became president to lead this country, he came to conquer and destroy.
You’re so right.
I despise him and every move he makes.
Well, there ya go.
This is ‘thee’ court which has stopped him.
It has over ruled his labor board appointments, etc.
That’s right, mike, plenty of blame to go around. Christie turned into a poorer but larger Bloomberg. Romney got derailed by Crowley in the second debate and he went too easy in the third debate on foreign policy. Sandy provided much distraction at just the wrong time. The LIEberal press. The air-head liberal voters. The 45+% receiving taxpayer assistance in one form or another, probably 2/3 of who must vote kneejerk Dimocrat to keep their bennies coming.
We will never know now but I think Romney would have governed as one guided by conservative principles to a larger degree than he exhibited in the liberal state of Massachusetts.
You know, his recess appointments.
Georgetown University Law Center
Cornelia Nina Pillard
Georgetown University Law Center
April 14, 2011
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, Vol. 18, pp. 229-296, 2012 Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 11-38
Abstract:
The biggest challenge for sex equality in the 21st Century is to dismantle inequality between women and men’s family care responsibilities. American law has largely accomplished formal equality in parenting by doing away with explicit gender classifications, along with many of the assumptions that fostered them. In a dramatic change from the mid-20th Century, law relating to family, work, civic participation and their various intersections is now virtually all sex-neutral.
As the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Nevada Department of Social Services v. Hibbs demonstrates, both Congress and the Court have accepted the feminist critique of sex roles and stereotyping as engines of discrimination and inequality. But the resultant legal reforms address only formal inequality; the challenge of lived inequality remains. Changes in legal norms must be embraced throughout the culture before their promise will be made real.
The most influential and resistant obstacle to actualizing gender equality is the continuing cultural practice of romanticizing the mother as the best possible caretaker. As the Court has recognized, we cannot simply accept existing gendered family patterns as results of freely made individual choices. Persistently gendered family care becomes self-fulfilling, and solidifies the very inequalities — economic, political and social — that the law strives to dislodge. Given that mothers’ unequal burden in the home is a fulcrum of broader sex discrimination, it is particularly disturbing that one of the most persistent strains in contemporary culture is a celebration of mothers’ domesticity and their role as the default parent, and that women’s rights organizations are buying in.
The “new maternalism,” as we call it, is evident along the political spectrum and across popular culture, from Sarah Palin’s Mama Grizzlies to the internet advocacy group Moms Rising, and from movies, television and advertising to countless “mommy blogs.” This phenomenon amounts to a distinctive, post-feminist understanding of motherhood that studiously avoids engaging with the gendered division of parenting and refuses to make any demands on men. By appealing to mothers, and not fathers, new maternalism risks reinforcing mothers’ second shift and the countless inequalities that flow from it. The sophisticated policy advocates who participate in the promotion of new maternalism have made a strategic choice to tap a culturally potent, contemporary form of gender identity politics. But they jeopardize their own advocacy goals when parenting and care work are cast in exclusively female terms, as a new—but fundamentally retro and feminine — maternalism.
Our analysis of the culture of new maternalism and its legal consequences comes from a deep appreciation of the enormous value and satisfactions of parenting; new maternalism has such appeal precisely because it correctly embraces what is meaningful about family care. Its error, we contend, lies in the tacit exclusion of men, whether willing or reluctant, from engaged parenting’s benefits and responsibilities. We conclude that equality outside the home requires equality inside it, which is why we come out against the new maternalism.
The difference between us and the hard left is that they unite all the time in the name of taking down the country. We seldom do and we see the result.
Once again everything they do has a political bent which we often ignore.,result,barry chen playing the part of the Manchurian and val/jar running the show.
We knew this was coming. Hope the R’s have a plan. No nominees to be confirmed. Conservatives have a great chance of taking back the Senate in 2014.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.