It would be lovely to see a new rule somewhat to the effect that if your decisions are overturned by the SCOTUS more than fifty percent of the time, the judge is automatically impeached.

DiFi is an entitled critter, she probably thinks the way she stated. Smug commie bitch.

National Review
ED Whelan

Yesterday Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and minority leader Chuck Schumer struck a deal in which Senate Democrats agreed to allow confirmation votes on 15 pending judicial nominees in exchange for an early recess in advance of November’s elections.

All 15 judicial nominees were confirmed yesterday. The group includes three federal appellate nominees—David Porter (CA3/PA), Ryan Nelson (CA9/ID), and Richard Sullivan (CA2/NY)—and twelve district-court nominees (William Ray, Liles Burke, Michael Juneau, Mark Norris, Eli Richardson, Thomas Kleeh, Peter Phipps, Susan Brnovich, Chad Kenney, Jeremy Kernodle, Lance Walker, and James Hanlon).

That takes President Trump’s total federal judicial appointments to 84—two Supreme Court justices, 29 federal appellate judges, and 53 federal district judges.

Even better: The Senate isn’t close to being done yet for the year. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley stated yesterday that he expects the Senate to confirm all the judicial nominations that remain on the Senate floor, plus any other nominations that the committee processes before the end of the year.

There are 32 judicial nominations pending on the Senate floor (one appellate and 31 district), and there are seven judicial nominations (two appellate and five district) ready to be reported out of committee. In addition, there are 14 more judicial nominations (four appellate and ten district) on which a committee hearing has been expected to occur by mid-November.

If all of these nominations are confirmed by year-end, that would take President Trump’s total to 137—two Supreme Court justices, 36 federal appellate judges, and 99 federal district judges.

For sake of comparison: President Obama’s total during his first two years was 62—two Supreme Court justices, 16 federal appellate judges, and 44 federal district judges.

President Trump, Senator McConnell, and Senator Grassley deserve huge congratulations.

Whether this tremendous progress continues over the next two years or instead comes to a screeching halt depends on whether or not Republicans retain control of the Senate going into the next Congress.

Link

No recess. Fill the vacancies. Feinstein and Harris can choke on it.

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:
It would be lovely to see a new rule somewhat to the effect that if your decisions are overturned by the SCOTUS more than fifty percent of the time, the judge is automatically impeached.

It would never happen as the Supremes don't hear enough cases. Most judges never have a case taken all the way up. Ever.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
"...and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested,” she said in a statement.

Oh, that's freakin' rich.

quote:

Originally spewed by Feinstein in 2010, about then-nominee Elena Kagan:

"Feinstein brushed off complaints from Kagan’s critics that lack of experience on the bench makes her unqualified."

"In my own view," Feinstein said, "judicial experience is a useful background. But it’s only one of many. And it’s a background that’s well represented on the court today - as a matter of fact, entirely represented on the court today."

"Feinstein pointed out that since the Supreme Court first convened 220 years ago, a third of its justices had no judicial experience before joining the court."

^^ You might want to email Fox and mention it. I'd love to see that clip on the evening news when the nominations come up for confirmation.

Especially since no one outside of California actually remembers Rose Bird, heh, heh, heh.

(I thought I'd double check my memory on that before posting and wound up coming across her obituary. I wonder if she ever fully appreciated the humor in her claim that she had taken it "just like a man" when the voters ran her out of the Chief Justiceship and off of the court entirely.)

BTW, one might also point out that Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter were named to the US Supreme Court without ever having been judges.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/art...ird-dies-3055490.php

quote:

If all of these nominations are confirmed by year-end, that would take President Trump’s total to 137—two Supreme Court justices, 36 federal appellate judges, and 99 federal district judges.For sake of comparison: President Obama’s total during his first two years was 62—two Supreme Court justices, 16 federal appellate judges, and 44 federal district judges.

And didn't OZero have the benefit of Dhim majorities in the House and Senate for the same two year period?

There is a lot going on in this article. Guess she could start by asking the WH instead of telling the WH. And 16 Dem / 13 Rep if the three conservative picks go through? Had no idea.

quote:

Dianne Feinstein ... “I repeatedly told the White House I wanted to reach an agreement on ...” she said in a statement.

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
"...and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested,” she said in a statement.

Oh, that's freakin' rich.

quote:

Originally spewed by Feinstein in 2010, about then-nominee Elena Kagan:

"Feinstein brushed off complaints from Kagan’s critics that lack of experience on the bench makes her unqualified."

"In my own view," Feinstein said, "judicial experience is a useful background. But it’s only one of many. And it’s a background that’s well represented on the court today - as a matter of fact, entirely represented on the court today."

"Feinstein pointed out that since the Supreme Court first convened 220 years ago, a third of its justices had no judicial experience before joining the court."

At the Supreme Court level, with what they do, that is probably not so essential.

Many district court judge nominees have no judicial experience. They handle trials, motions, evidentiary hearings and get a lot of experience real fast.

Eight other States make up the 9th Circuit...

quote:

Originally posted by Sig M11:
Eight other States make up the 9th Circuit...

My thoughts, exactly. California is only one state that Circuit covers, so why should they have the ability to nix a choice?

flashguy

If a future Senate Majority leader chooses to honor California Senators' refusal to return blue slips, it won't matter - three judges will have already been appointed to the Circuit. As for the other eight states, do we really expect that sort of shenanigans from most of those states' Senators? Hawaii, maybe, but Idaho? I'd say to look for more appointments from Hawaii, Oregon, and maybe Nevada and Washington if the Republicans retain control of the Senate after the upcoming elections, on the principle that it's best to strike while the iron is hot.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig M11:
Eight other States make up the 9th Circuit...

My thoughts, exactly. California is only one state that Circuit covers, so why should they have the ability to nix a choice?

It's probably a mix of entitlement and politics.

I'm sure THEY understand that it's not *their* court, but their mindless voters don't know that. . .

And after their shameless treatment of Kavanaugh and their overt inciting of violence against conservatives, they STILL blather on about "trying to work with Trump and the Republicans." Hypocracy at its lowest.

Feinstein has two roles here. She is Senator from CA, so has the privilege of blueslipping nominations from that state. She is also ranking member of the Judiciary Committee so wants to feel like she has some say in these deals. She may have had some say in the past but after her hijinks in the Kavanaugh confirmation just ended may have squandered that say.

I would go even further and say that this is NOT a 'snub.'

These dems are NOT entitled to pick or approve judge nominees.

It is NOT 'their' court.

They do NOT get to determine the political leanings of nominees.

President Trump owes them NOTHING.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:
It would be lovely to see a new rule somewhat to the effect that if your decisions are overturned by the SCOTUS more than fifty percent of the time, the judge is automatically impeached.

It would never happen as the Supremes don't hear enough cases. Most judges never have a case taken all the way up. Ever.

Here is a unique category.

quote:

Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw Makes Her Mark

National Review
Ed Whelan
November 21, 2017


When the Supreme Court summarily reverses a lower court’s ruling—that is, when it reverses without seeing any need for briefing on the merits and oral argument—that’s ordinarily* quite a black mark for the judge who authored the opinion below. Most federal appellate judges go through their entire careers without such a summary reversal.

And then there’s Ninth Circuit judge Kim McLane Wardlaw (appointed to that court by President Clinton).

The Supreme Court’s unanimous summary reversal two weeks ago in Kernan v. Cuero marks at least the fourth such reversal of a Wardlaw ruling, on top of those in McDaniel v. Brown (2009), Whitman v. Dep’t of Transportation (2006), and Gonzales v. Thomas (2006). It’s almost as if she’s deliberately competing against her colleague Stephen Reinhardt for the Lifetime Summary Reversal Award. (My thanks to the reader who called Wardlaw’s feat to my attention.)

Perhaps not coincidentally, one feature that three of the four Wardlaw rulings share is that Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain—one of the few very bright spots on a dismal court—was in dissent.

* I say ordinarily because there might be instances when the judge below is compelled by badly mistaken circuit precedent to rule as he did.

Link

A month later,

quote:

As foreseen, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous per curiam opinion, has summarily reversed the divided Ninth Circuit ruling that would have required the government to disclose all documents bearing on its rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) policy. That’s yet another extraordinary slapdown of Ninth Circuit judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, who co-authored the Ninth Circuit ruling.