The Article III Courts can function normally for 5 more days, after that, it gets very interesting

Jezcoe · 2019-01-06T12:07:59.632Z

calirepub:

Safiel:

calirepub:

Safiel:

calirepub:

This sounds VERY interesting. I wonder if this will influence Trump to accept government funding that doesn’t include a wall.

J14 is almost here.

Probably not.

Ironically, civil cases against him are on hold as a result of the shutdown, so this might give him the opposite motivation.

That seems like such a vulgar application of the law. I’m disappointed in Mitch for not bringing the government funding bill to a vote. It would pass by a veto proof majority. Mitch just doesn’t want to make Donald look bad.

I put this 100% on Donald Trump.

McConnell is between a rock and a hard place. He has Senator’s that are beholden to Trump’s nativist base. He is in a no win situation. If Trump stopped with the wall nonsense, this problem would cease to exist.

I agree. I’ve been calling it the Great Trump/McConnell Christmas Holiday Government Shutdown for awhile now (usually not with all of those words), but i’m being completely serious. McConnell had 100 votes to fund the government until Donald said no, and McConnell didn’t want to upset the Trumpist base. This weakness saddens me because Congress is not subservient to the Executive branch. Mitch needs to get in a room with Donald and tell him whats going to happen.

This a million times over.

Kyshia · 2019-01-06T12:10:33.768Z

Yes. In this instance, McConnell has more power than Trump, and he needs to realize it.

By the way, how much longer does he expect to remain in Congress? He’s an old man. He should start sticking up for himself.

ohknow35 · 2019-01-06T13:48:26.430Z

Fortune

The Courts Run Out of Cash Next Friday. Here’s What Happens Then

Companies turning to the federal courts to resolve fights with rivals and customers might be in limbo if the government shutdown continues.

Look at all of the options available.

-“In the past, some courts have suspended civil cases, some have conducted business as usual,” Sellers said. “It’s really a judge-by-judge, court-by-court determination.”

-“I think American companies can handle it for a while, but obviously if this is still going on six months from now it’ll be a very serious situation,” Wheeler said. If the shutdown is protracted, he said, companies may try to resolve disputes in other ways, including arbitration, if possible, taking their cases to the much larger network of state courts, which isn’t affected by the closure.

And a solution is already in pkace.

-Whenever the cash runs out, the courts will begin operating under the Antideficiency Act, the federal law that requires work to continue if it’s necessary “to support the exercise of Article III judicial powers,” or the resolution of cases, under the Constitution.

And finally, we see who the real culprits are once again (people who are blocking judges have slowed things down.

-A loss of funding for civil cases would exacerbate a problem that’s already made it harder for companies to get their day in court, said Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former deputy director at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington. That problem: 119 judicial vacancies, or about 18 percent of the 677 federal judgeships.

Jezcoe · 2019-01-06T13:50:11.604Z

ohknow35:

Federal Courts Run Out of Cash Next Friday. Here’s What Happens Then | Fortune

Look at all of the options available.

-“In the past, some courts have suspended civil cases, some have conducted business as usual,” Sellers said. “It’s really a judge-by-judge, court-by-court determination.”

-“I think American companies can handle it for a while, but obviously if this is still going on six months from now it’ll be a very serious situation,” Wheeler said. If the shutdown is protracted, he said, companies may try to resolve disputes in other ways, including arbitration, if possible, taking their cases to the much larger network of state courts, which isn’t affected by the closure.

And a solution is already in pkace.

-Whenever the cash runs out, the courts will begin operating under the Antideficiency Act, the federal law that requires work to continue if it’s necessary “to support the exercise of Article III judicial powers,” or the resolution of cases, under the Constitution.

And finally, we see who the real culprits are once again (people who are blocking judges have slowed things down.

-A loss of funding for civil cases would exacerbate a problem that’s already made it harder for companies to get their day in court, said Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former deputy director at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington. That problem: 119 judicial vacancies, or about 18 percent of the 677 federal judgeships.

I really want you to talk about the people who have been blocking judges and slowing things down.

Please expand upon that.

hindsight · 2019-01-06T13:57:37.008Z

Sombody forget to the Mitch that the Legislature is a seperate brqnch of government?

calirepub · 2019-01-06T14:02:05.451Z

hindsight:

Sombody forget to the Mitch that the Legislature is a seperate brqnch of government?

Can’t criticize the Dear Leader. Trump owns the Republican Party.

biggestal99 · 2019-01-06T14:56:10.611Z

E-verify is down.

Allan

ohknow35 · 2019-01-06T15:48:54.703Z

There you go.

townhall.com – 2 Jan 19

Trump Calls Out Dems for Blocking Judicial Nominations

Jezcoe · 2019-01-06T15:52:05.477Z

ohknow35:

There you go.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2019/01/02/trump-calls-out-dems-for-blocking-judicial-nominations-n2538348

Yes… the President called out the Democrats.

How many Democrat votes are necessary for filling Article III vacancies?

How many vacancies were filled during the previous administration?

Who has the power in the Senate and has had it since 2015?

lulubee · 2019-01-06T16:06:51.075Z

Meh. We don’t need courts or any gubmint.

DOLOOP · 2019-01-06T16:49:49.999Z

lulubee:

Meh. We don’t need courts or any gubmint.

Courts are for liberals.

Camp · 2019-01-06T19:25:18.511Z

Trump would agree 100%

Supporting border agents and security is NOT nonsense to many.

It is the front line of judicial casework.

DaMan · 2019-01-06T19:49:25.470Z

Safiel:

I put this 100% on Donald Trump.

McConnell is between a rock and a hard place. He has Senator’s that are beholden to Trump’s nativist base. He is in a no win situation. If Trump stopped with the wall nonsense, this problem would cease to exist.

This is what you get when senators and parties rule for the president rather than American people

ohknow35 · 2019-01-06T21:00:55.448Z

So it’s your contention that the dimocrats are not doing anything to slow the confirmation process for all of those judicial nominees?? And that each of the nominees could immediately be brought to the floor for a straight up or down vote??

That’s what you believe??

Jezcoe · 2019-01-06T21:55:04.761Z

ohknow35:

So it’s your contention that the dimocrats are not doing anything to slow the confirmation process for all of those judicial nominees?? And that each of the nominees could immediately be brought to the floor for a straight up or down vote??

That’s what you believe??

If your problem is vacancies and slowing things frown, why do those vacancies exist and have existed for so long in the first place?

What the Dems are doing is absolutely nothing to what happened between 2015 and 2017.

Safiel · 2019-01-06T22:34:18.980Z

Test

Here is a chart, starting with Truman and the 79th Congress and ending with Obama and the 114th Congress.

Note the mere 17 nominees confirmed in the 82nd Congress.

In cases where Congresses were split between two Presidents, the totals should be added together.

The numbers flucate from year to year due to the ebb and flow of politics and some of the increases are due to the creation of new judgeships.

But then you get to Obama and the Republican Senate in the 114th Congress. Only 22 confirmations. You have to go all the way back to the 82nd Congress under Truman to find a Senate that did worse.

There is absolutely no excuse for what Republicans did in that Congress and it is made even worse by the fact that a number of nominees obstructed in that Congress where ultimately RENOMINATED BY TRUMP AND CONFIRMED!!!

It was done for no other reason than to **** Obama.

I don’t excuse what Democrats are doing now or have done wrong in the past. BOTH sides need to stop.

But the atrocity of what happened in the 114th Congress stands out from all other obstructive behavior ever done.

And it is the reason why we came into the Trump presidency with such a massive vacancy crisis. Republicans dug a vacancy hole that it will take this country years to dig out of

The first column in the chart below is the average number of days from nomination to confirmation in that Congress. The second column is the total number of nominees confirmed by that Congress. Now in cases where Congress split between President, it shows the number confirmed under President.

For example, the 93rd Congress confirmed 43 under Nixon and 14 under Ford for a total of 57.

Truman

79th 17 32

80th 54 13

81st 93 65

82nd 41 17

Overall 63 127

Eisenhower

83rd 28 55

84th 85 41

85th 38 37

86th 113 45

87th 510 2

Overall 70 180

Kennedy

87th 46 111

88th 86 16

Overall 51 127

L. Johnson

88th 63 21

89th 33 93

90th 42 66

Overall 40 180

Nixon

91st 33 91

92nd 25 104

93rd 29 43

Overall 29 238

Ford

93rd 16 14

94th 41 48

Overall 36 62

Carter

95th 42 62

96th 79 199

Overall 71 261

Reagan

97th 34 88

98th 40 78

99th 73 132

100th 124 85

Overall 69 383

G. H. W. Bush

101st 80 71

102nd 112 122

Overall 100 193

Clinton

103rd 80 128

104th 126 75

105th 224 101

106th 204 73

Overall 152 377

G. W. Bush

107th 160 100

108th 194 104

109th 329 54

110th 216 68

Overall 211 326

Obama

111th 192 62

112th 242 111

113th 227 134

114th 320 22

Overall 230 329

ohknow35 · 2019-01-06T22:40:34.885Z

If you look just above obama on your chart, I believe you’ll see the trend started slightly before obama took office. And fewer judges confirmed as well.

Just sayin.

ohknow35 · 2019-01-06T22:42:24.022Z

So any answer to my questions about dimocrat obstruction on the nominees, or just more “waaaahhh obama”??

And it started before obama took office ftr.

TommyLucchese · 2019-01-06T22:46:17.782Z

Safiel:

As for the future, I would like to see a statute that would establish a permanent appropriation for the Article III Judiciary that would not need to be renewed year to year. It would automatically be adjusted for inflation. It would ONLY fund court operations, NOT court improvements or other projects, which would still be funded by a yearly appropriation bill.

The courts should never be forced to close by a funding cutoff, as it is a direct affront to justice.

I strenuously disagree. If you want the courts to function, fund the government. All these workarounds to keep things functioning during shutdowns just encourages them to do this even more and by them I mean the Republican Party exclusively.

Jezcoe · 2019-01-06T23:00:00.741Z

ohknow35:

So any answer to my questions about dimocrat obstruction on the nominees, or just more “waaaahhh obama”??

And it started before obama took office ftr.

Actually my response isn’t waaaaaahhhh Obama.

The deficit in Article III judges was engineered by the leader of the Senate.

Obama has nothing to do with it.