Maybe the political stars will be aligned sufficient for a Federal Judgeship Bill

Safiel · 2019-12-25T21:49:07.346Z

For comparison, the number of Judgeships added by historical major judgeship bills and the cluster of Judgeship bills from 1999 to 2003:

1960 - 82
1966 - 51
1970 - 58
1978 - 152
1984 - 85
1990 - 85
1999 - 9
2000 - 10
2003 - 15

2020 - 70???

WuWei · 2019-12-25T22:40:53.629Z

No.
…

Safiel · 2019-12-25T23:12:31.977Z

WuWei:

No.
…

Yes…

highroller · 2019-12-26T00:24:03.942Z

This is a desperate need to expand the judiciary from what I have gathered in other threads (judges working 6 12 hour days a week), but the behavior on the Republican side would kill any bill that expanded the judgeships since they have worked so hard the last 20 years to politicize and capture control of the judicial branch.

So no dice I’m afraid…

WildRose · 2019-12-26T00:34:50.045Z

I seriously doubt that is going to happen. Democrats understand that the biggest impediment to their agenda long term is getting more originalists on the federal bench.

I would expect them to hold off on creating any new judgeships much less splitting the 9th into two new districts until they have a democrat in the WH.

If Trump wins reelection and republicans maintain control in the senate and retake the house I would expect this to be a priority for 2021.

highroller · 2019-12-26T00:35:26.464Z

^ Exhibit A

WildRose · 2019-12-26T00:39:35.877Z

Democrats wove judicial activists into the courts for over fifty years to further their agenda through litigation. Returning control of the courts to strict constructionists and constitutionalists is simply returning the balance required for true justice.

Safiel · 2019-12-26T00:46:11.930Z

I don’t trust partisan’s of either stripe. Both have obstructed. Both have placed unworthy hacks on the Courts of Appeals. H. Lee Sarokin and Cornelia Pillard are two hacks from the left, Pillard being described as Reinhardt in a skirt. There are a couple of Republican appointed hacks as well.

I don’t think EITHER party has the courage to pass a Judgeship bill NOW, when they should, and wait on the judgement of the American people as to who will fill those judgeships starting on January 20, 2021.

WildRose · 2019-12-26T00:54:55.092Z

Waiting would make no sense. If there is an actual critical need it should be addressed as soon as possible.

Even once all the new judges are appointed it will likely be a year or more before they all have court facilities to support the additional workload.

Safiel · 2019-12-26T01:09:10.302Z

WildRose:

Waiting would make no sense. If there is an actual critical need it should be addressed as soon as possible.

Even once all the new judges are appointed it will likely be a year or more before they all have court facilities to support the additional workload.

The Democratic controlled House of Representatives wouldn’t be ******* stupid enough to blindly hand Trump 70 free judgeships.

The only way a judgeship bill will pass is if all the judgeships are postdated to January 20, 2021 and filled by the President that will be elected in November, Republican or Democrat.

WildRose · 2019-12-26T01:15:50.737Z

You’re making my point.

WuWei · 2019-12-26T02:33:00.597Z

Safiel:

WuWei:

No.
…

Yes…

Only if they make common sense a requirement for the position and they have to pinky swear to follow the letter of the Constitution.

WuWei · 2019-12-26T02:33:43.784Z

highroller:

This is a desperate need to expand the judiciary from what I have gathered in other threads (judges working 6 12 hour days a week), but the behavior on the Republican side would kill any bill that expanded the judgeships since they have worked so hard the last 20 years to politicize and capture control of the judicial branch.

So no dice I’m afraid…

You just can’t help it, can you?

Safiel · 2019-12-26T05:47:49.404Z

WildRose:

You’re making my point.

In light of the fact that Trump will likely finish the current Presidential term with at least 240 judicial confirmations, throwing 70 new Judgeships into the mix would ring up a potential single term total of 310, almost as many as G.W. Bush and Obama each appointed in TWO terms. Politically it is a non-starter and rightfully would be seen as court packing.

The only RIGHT option is to postpone the judgeships to the start of the NEXT Presidential term and let the American people decide who they want to fill them.

And it is the ONLY way that a Judgeship bill will pass.

While I would like the judgeships sooner, anti-court packing interests require that they wait until 2021.

markdido · 2019-12-26T06:14:11.058Z

Safiel:

WildRose:

You’re making my point.

In light of the fact that Trump will likely finish the current Presidential term with at least 240 judicial confirmations, throwing 70 new Judgeships into the mix would ring up a potential single term total of 310, almost as many as G.W. Bush and Obama each appointed in TWO terms. Politically it is a non-starter and rightfully would be seen as court packing.

The only RIGHT option is to postpone the judgeships to the start of the NEXT Presidential term and let the American people decide who they want to fill them.

And it is the ONLY way that a Judgeship bill will pass.

While I would like the judgeships sooner, anti-court packing interests require that they wait until 2021.

And do you think that if Dems win the Presidency, they will not stack the court?

DougBH · 2019-12-26T06:23:12.902Z

Why would Democrats do this (assuming the actual need for judgeships is the least of their concerns)? They likely believe that their chances of keeping the House are better than their chances of taking the Senate and the Presidency. That being so, they would naturally not vote for this until after the election. Then if they take the House, Senate and Presidency they will of course vote for it. If they don’t take the Senate or the Presidency, no way.
The only way they could win voting for it now is to take all three. Odds say to them wait and see. They sure don’t want a second term President Trump and a Republican Senate with 70 new judgeships to fill.
Heck, they don’t even want them marrying people.

WuWei · 2019-12-26T15:10:53.957Z

Safiel:

and rightfully would be seen as court packing.

No. That’s not court packing.

Safiel · 2019-12-26T15:44:14.282Z

markdido:

Safiel:

WildRose:

You’re making my point.

In light of the fact that Trump will likely finish the current Presidential term with at least 240 judicial confirmations, throwing 70 new Judgeships into the mix would ring up a potential single term total of 310, almost as many as G.W. Bush and Obama each appointed in TWO terms. Politically it is a non-starter and rightfully would be seen as court packing.

The only RIGHT option is to postpone the judgeships to the start of the NEXT Presidential term and let the American people decide who they want to fill them.

And it is the ONLY way that a Judgeship bill will pass.

While I would like the judgeships sooner, anti-court packing interests require that they wait until 2021.

And do you think that if Dems win the Presidency, they will not stack the court?

I have no doubt that if Trump wins he will continue with his zealous appointment regime.

I also have no doubt that if a Democrat wins, that Democrat will conduct a zealous appointment regime of his or her own.

The point of all this is to create the judgeships before the election so the American people can decide who they want making all these appointments.

Turning to another angle.

Right now, there are about 96 current and future vacancies that Trump could conceivably fill prior to the end of his first term. However, even with the new expedited Senate procedures, filling even that many would be quite a stretch. Most likely he would not have time to fill the new vacancies even if they were made effective now.

There really is very little reason why the judgeships should not be postdated until January 20, 2021.

WuWei · 2019-12-26T15:46:36.034Z

Safiel:

I have no doubt that if Trump wins he will continue with his zealous appointment regime.

You’ve been complaining for years about vacancies and now he’s a zealot? He’s giving you what you demanded.

Safiel:

There really is very little reason why the judgeships should not be postdated until January 20, 2021.

Except that it’s a crisis now!

markdido · 2019-12-27T06:28:28.128Z

WuWei:

Safiel:

I have no doubt that if Trump wins he will continue with his zealous appointment regime.

You’ve been complaining for years about vacancies and now he’s a zealot? He’s giving you what you demanded.

Safiel:

There really is very little reason why the judgeships should not be postdated until January 20, 2021.

Except that it’s a crisis now!

Amazing, isn’t it.