Posted on 09/06/2016 9:41:32 AM PDT by fwdude
On the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States of America. After nearly eight years as president, he has delivered on one front by reshaping the federal judiciary.
That revolution has been comprehensive, dramatic, and under the radar.
When Obama entered the Oval Office, liberal judges controlled just one of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fifty-five successful presidential nominations later, liberal majorities now control nine of those appeals benches, or 70 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
-PJ
Opportunity here. Suppose a court is closed (or realigned) and the Supreme Court rules that the inferior court cannot be closed. Then the basis for impeachment of several Supreme Court justices is established. Whether Congress can get enough votes to remove them is another matter. But Congress can continue with the realignment and let the Supreme Court send its army to enforce its edict. They don't have an army? Oh, well.
Salvation of our republic is far beyond the capability of any election.
Don't forget the inherent advantages of Ropes and Lampposts.
The system is gamed. The herd is bribed, and a bribed herd will never vote to stop their bribery.
Once peaceful revolution becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable.
Sure, if there were to be a conservative Republican super-majority in the Senate that could happen.
The article that we are commenting on has an incorrect assumption: that all the judges appointed by a president share that president’s political ideology. That just isn’t true.
One way to stop ideological judges is already in place:
Blue Slips
Senatorial courtesy is manifested in something called the “blue slip.”
This is a device used by the Senate Judiciary Committee to communicate with the home-state Senators about a nomination to the U.S. courts of appeal or district courts, or to be a U.S. marshal or a U.S. attorney. When a nominee is referred to the Judiciary Committee, the committee sends a letter (on light blue paper) asking the two home-state Senators to take a position on the nomination. The Senators check off the appropriate box on the sheet — either approve or disapprove — and return the paper to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
The blue slip process is used only by the Senate Judiciary Committee — no other Senate committee uses it for other kinds of nominations. The practice of using blue slips dates back to at least 1917.
Since 2001, the status of blue slips for each judge nominated have been publicly available on the Internet.
The blue slip practice is not a formal part of the Judiciary Committee’s rules, and the determination of just how much weight to give to a Senator’s opposition to a nomination is left up to Senator Grassley. Among other issues, he decides whether to honor the objections, voiced through blue-slips, from all home-state senators or just those who belong to the same party as the president. Senator Grassley honors them all and liberals hate him for that.
The blue slip process developed because the Senate needed to create a way for members to register their disapproval if a President did not involve them enough in the “advice phase” of a nomination. The blue slip process is the sanction that a president faces for violating the norm of senatorial courtesy in the judicial appointment process.
Blue-slipping is how senators can block federal judge nominees from their state; by simply not returning blue slips sent by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a senator can stop a nominee, an effective bargaining tool with the White House.
To date, 329 Obama-nominated federal judges have been confirmed by the United States Senate. 121 of those federal judges were confirmed unanimously, 38 were confirmed by unanimous consent, 65 were confirmed on a voice vote. That’s 224 federal judges who were basically unchallenged and 105 who were challenged.
6 Obama nominees were rejected via Republican filibusters of their nominations. Obama withdrew all six filibustered nominations and in all six instances Obama nominated a different judge who was then confirmed.
I can guarantee you that when an Obama judge from a state with a Republican Senator was confirmed unanimously, it was because Obama nominated someone recommended by that state’s Republican Senator rather than risking a Blue Slip rejection.
Now in states with two Democrat Senators, we’re probably getting communists, socialists, global warming fantatics and baby-killers.
-PJ
In the entire history of the Republic, only one judge has been removed from office for what might be termed ideological reasons: he sided with the Confederacy.
I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen, just that it hasn’t happened. Politicians tend to fear that the same tools they use will be used against them at a future time when the other side is in the majority.
The 15 Impeachments of Federal Judges
John Pickering, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.
Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
James H. Peck, U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on January 31, 1831.
West H. Humphreys, U.S. District Court for the Middle, Eastern, and Western Districts of Tennessee.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.
Mark W. Delahay, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 28, 1873, on charges of intoxication on the bench; Resigned from office, December 12, 1873, before opening of trial in the U.S. Senate.
Charles Swayne, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, December 13, 1904, on charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate February 27, 1905.
Robert W. Archbald, U.S. Commerce Court.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 11, 1912, on charges of improper business relationship with litigants; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, January 13, 1913.
George W. English, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, April 1, 1926, on charges of abuse of power; Resigned from office November 4, 1926; Senate Court of Impeachment adjourned to December 13, 1926, when, on request of the House manager, impeachment proceedings were dismissed.
Harold Louderback, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1933, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on May 24, 1933.
Halsted L. Ritter, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 2, 1936, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers and practicing law while sitting as a judge; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, April 17, 1936.
Harry E. Claiborne, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 22, 1986, on charges of income tax evasion and of remaining on the bench following criminal conviction; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 9, 1986.
Alcee L. Hastings, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, August 3, 1988, on charges of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 20, 1989.
Walter L. Nixon, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 10, 1989, on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, November 3, 1989.
Samuel B. Kent, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, June 19, 2009, on charges of sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, and making false and misleading statements; Resigned from office, June 30, 2009. On July 20, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to a resolution not to pursue further the articles of impeachment, and on July 22, 2009, the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, dismissed the articles.
G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 11, 2010, on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, December 8, 2010.
You’re welcome. I understand your point and its an interesting proposition.
I recall reading somewhere the argument that Congress cannot eliminate a court because it would result in a judge losing his job, which would be, in effect, a "diminishment" of their compensation, which Article III Section 1 expressly prohibits. On the other hand, Article III Section 1 also says "during their continuance in office," so one could counter by saying that eliminating the Court discontinues their service, making eliminating their compensation Constitutional.
Anyway, an argument only lawyers and judges could love.
-PJ
What happens to pending cases and trials in progress if a court is eliminated?
Because of the perceived authority in their pronouncements. A lot of people WOULD ignore them, but are afraid of their own shadows (and loss of comforts.)
“Salvation of our republic is far beyond the capability of any election.”
Read your Bible - ancient Israel degraded to some pretty low levels, but still came back many times...but you have to survive in order to come back. A Trump Presidency won’t be a return to the peace through strength prosperity of the 1950s (when we had no overseas commercial competition to speak of), but it WILL be better on MANY levels than another Clinton Presidency.
What about this? With the population growth such as it is, Congress decides the the 11 circuit courts are imbalanced, and decides to expand them to, say, 15. To do this they shrink the sizes of the 8th and 9th and create 2 more in each.
The cases can remain in whichever new circuit has jurisdiction over the district or state. But what happens to the displaced judges? Does one assume that a judge "redistricted" out of a smaller 9th automatically moves over to the new 12th, or is the new 12th a virgin court where the President is free to fill it up with fresh nominees?
-PJ
Even if elected she won’t survive 8 years. We have no idea what we’ll end up with if she wins.
Which judges are retained gets determined by seniority.
-PJ
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.