Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Senate confirmed four of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees to federal appeals courts this week, bringing his total number of circuit court appointments to 21.
...
The Senate has now confirmed 21 Trump nominees to the federal appellate courts. The 13 circuit courts issue final decisions in the overwhelming majority of federal cases.
There are currently 32 district court nominees and one circuit court nominee pending before the Senate.
Two are for the Chicago area Court of Appeals... one for the Denver Court of Appeals... one in the Ohio/Kentucky area.
There was a huge backlog of judicial appointments, Trump is going to get 2 terms worth in in one term. Very important for our country that we have conservative judges. You could make a strong case that the judicial branch is the most powerful branch of government right now.
There was a huge backlog of judicial appointments, Trump is going to get 2 terms worth in in one term. Very important for our country that we have conservative judges. You could make a strong case that the judicial branch is the most powerful branch of government right now.
Correct not only for this presidency but for years to come.
The greatest contribution of the Senate in the 2012-2016 period, was to deny confirmation of so many of Obama's far-left judicial appointees. This left many more seats open for judges who would actually support and obey the Constitution and its smaller-govt conservative dictates.
And now those openings are being filled with qualified people... for a change.
I've already pointed out in another thread, that the tide is slowly starting to turn against the liberal agenda that has been so dominant for the last fifty-plus years. The courts are making more and more decisions that rule that the Fed govt did not have the authority to make a laws that was unduly restricting the states, or usurped power the Constitution forbids them to have, etc.
And that's BEFORE the bulk of these open judgeships are filled with Constitution-supporting conservatives. As more of them are appointed, and more and more courts swing into conservative mindsets that implement the Constitution as it was originally intended, we will finally see the cancer of liberalism inexorably eradicated from our country.
President Trump has appointed more than 100 judges to the Federal bench so far, including a Supreme Court justice... and he's just getting started. Approx. 1/3 of those have been confirmed by the Senate so far.
By the time he leaves office in January 2025, he will likely have appointed more than 500 Federal judges who will actually support and uphold the Constitution. And if another Republican takes office then, we can count on many hundreds more.
We can look forward to the pillars of liberalism being pretty much reduced or destroyed in the next decade or two.
High time. The country has suffered enough from the ravages of the socialistic agenda called liberalism. Time for freedom, personal responsibility and charity to be given a chance at last.
I've already pointed out in another thread, that the tide is slowly starting to turn against the liberal agenda that has been so dominant for the last fifty-plus years. The courts are making more and more decisions that rule that the Fed govt did not have the authority to make a laws that was unduly restricting the states, or usurped power the Constitution forbids them to have, etc.
And that's BEFORE the bulk of these open judgeships are filled with Constitution-supporting conservatives. As more of them are appointed, and more and more courts swing into conservative mindsets that implement the Constitution as it was originally intended, we will finally see the cancer of liberalism inexorably eradicated from our country.
And like I said in the other thread, until they completely overturn ALL federal drug laws they will have accomplished very little.
Anyway, I rejoice in the President and the Senate performing their Constitutional duty to nominate/advise and consent individuals for the Federal courts. As I have said before, it is the President's prerogative to nominate whom he wants, and the Senate should approve said nominees, unless there are firm reasons to not do so.
From the OP's link:
"Two nominees to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Michael Scudder and Amy St. Eve, were confirmed on unanimous votes Monday, as they were selected in consultation with Illinois’ two U.S. senators, Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth. Senators generally have special prerogatives for judicial vacancies arising in their states, and the 7th Circuit is based in Chicago."
Such is the normal way of handling judicial appointments. As noted in my paragraph, consulting with the Senators from the state in which the nominees will serve has been 'generally' how such nominations proceed. Here, the two Democratic Senators from Illinois were consulted, and they agreed with the two nominees being advanced, resulting in an unanimous vote.
Anyway, I rejoice in the President and the Senate performing their Constitutional duty to nominate/advise and consent individuals for the Federal courts. As I have said before, it is the President's prerogative to nominate whom he wants, and the Senate should approve said nominees, unless there are firm reasons to not do so.
From the OP's link:
"Two nominees to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Michael Scudder and Amy St. Eve, were confirmed on unanimous votes Monday, as they were selected in consultation with Illinois’ two U.S. senators, Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth. Senators generally have special prerogatives for judicial vacancies arising in their states, and the 7th Circuit is based in Chicago."
Such is the normal way of handling judicial appointments. As noted in my paragraph, consulting with the Senators from the state in which the nominees will serve has been 'generally' how such nominations proceed. Here, the two Democratic Senators from Illinois were consulted, and they agreed with the two nominees being advanced, resulting in an unanimous vote.
If those two were ok with the nominations, I'm skeptical of how conservative they will actually be on the bench!
If those two were ok with the nominations, I'm skeptical of how conservative they will actually be on the bench!
Yeah - I thought that as well... but if that's generally how those things are handled, then it is what it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
