Dennis Cook said: You guys act like all the republicans do is block all there nominations and that is absolute BS. Under Obama there has been 211judges confirmed by the senate. 39 judges have been confirmed to the court of appeals by the senate and 168 to US district courts. So where is all this obstructionism. Looks like many judges were confirmed as they should have been. The reason for blocking certain ones is because of the hyperpartisan beliefs of some of these nominees. Obama is just trying to stack the court with like minded individuals so Obamacare will have a golden parachute. Hes trying to build a majority in the court that is going to hear all the cases about Obamacare. Its blatantly obvious, but the left will never quit demonizing us evil republicans.
If it were me, after Obama has lied about so many things, I would fillibuster every piece of legislation that comes from the democrats because its obvious they cant be trusted on anything. All they do is say one thing and do another and then cover it up and blame it on the repubs......or a video........or George W Bush.
These people arent accountable for anything and thats why they cant be trusted
Dennis,
Just read something about this, of course just one source, but Senator Grassley, spoke about blocking President Obama's nominations to the DC 2nd court, "in an effort to save money" yet under the Bush presidency Senator Grassley voted to fill those 3 seats that President Obama is trying to fill. Although Grassley says the president can move those seats elsewhere, but I think the republicans' problem is the cases that the DC second court hears. But if it is an effort to save money, then fill one seat, how can a court run with an even number? Boards don't do that, jury's don't do that. Have a nine member court, I can accept that.
I for one don't want to demonize republicans but if the shoe fits, the president won the election, it is his duty to fill those seats. Why don't the republicans present an electable candidate, then they can fill those seats with who they would like. Of course the democratic senators will fight it as they did under President Bush, but I will support any president to fill those seats, unless they nominate people that are totally unqualified. That's what elections are for or those are the consequences, maybe people should think about that more when they are voting.
I had to support President Bush going to war in Iraq despite misgivings, I had to support his not putting the cost of the wars in the budget (like President Obama did, which is why we have a debt and budget issue, and his other, I would call them mistakes, such as cutting taxes without cutting spending, Medicare D with the donut hole). I could only try to find and vote for candidates that would correct those issues. But wanting to hold up the country's business because you disagree? What other business runs like that, and that is what I hear all the time "that government should run more like a business" (which I agree with sometimes because of the added cost of doing things to make sure there is no improprieties and money/jobs etc being handed out as favors) Transparency does come with a price, plus in some situations like rebuilding after natural disasters does require efforts outside of normal business norms. But what do I know, just my opinion.
Mel