Meet the Three Judges Who Could Bring the Senate to its KneesBy Philip Bump |
The Atlantic Wire – 7 hrs ago
Meet the Three Judges Who Could …
The White House Rose Garden is rarely a scene of insurrection. But if
reports are to be believed, this morning at 10:30 the president will use the
setting for phase one of a strategy that could end with Senate Democrats
exercising the "nuclear option" to reset rules around the use of the
filibuster. Simply by saying three names.
The plan goes something like this. At the event, Obama will nominate three
judges to fill three vacancies on an appeals court
serving Washington, D.C. (The D.C. Circuit, as it's known, has broad
power to review federal regulations, making it an extremely powerful
bench — and one from which four sitting Supreme Court Justices have come.) The
Constitution mandates that the Senate vote on
those nominees, which under normal circumstances would likely mean that
they'd be approved. After all, 54 Democrats and Democrat-friendly
independents is a larger number than 45 Republicans.
But these are not normal circumstances. Obama has nominated people to fill
those three vacancies before, only to see the nominations blocked by a
Republican filibuster. In the current Senate, a nominee needs 60 votes — enough
to end any filibuster and be approved. With the Democrats losing a senator
yesterday, reaching that number just became harder.
After Obama nominates three people at once, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
can bring them before the whole Senate simultaneously. The hope is
that, by doing so, the Republicans would be less able to justify
filibusters for all three, given that it's meant to be a tool employed
in rare circumstances. If the Republicans do filibuster them all, the Senate
could decide to revamp established rules — which isn't subject to
filibuster — making it so that certain nominees need only a majority of
votes to be approved. This is known, melodramatically, as the "nuclear
option," given that it upends the protocol to which the Senate
ostensibly adheres.
The three nominees, according to The New York Times and The Washington Post,
are:
* Patricia Ann Millett. Millett served as an
assistant to the Solicitor General under Presidents Clinton and George
W. Bush. Prior to that, she worked in the Department of Justice's Civil
Division. She currently works for the D.C. Law firm Akin Gump, where she leads
the appellate practice. She's argued 32 cases before the Supreme
Court. (Source.)
*
* Cornelia T. L. Pillard. Pillard, now a professor at Georgetown
University, also worked for the
Solicitor General under President Clinton, eventually becoming an
Assistant Attorney General. Prior to entering government service, she
worked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund as assistant counsel. Pillard
has argued eight cases before the Supreme Court. (Source.)
*
* Robert L. Wilkins. Wilkins has served on the D.C. District Court
since 2010. Prior to
that, he served in the public defender's office in the District of
Columbia. Wilkins, who is black, was also party to a landmark civil rights
case, following a Maryland traffic stop in which he and family members were
pulled over for no reason other than race. (Source.)
If the Senate were to approve all three nominees, the balance of the D.C.
Circuit would shift. Right now, four Democratic appointees and four Republican
appointees sit on what
is widely believed to be the nation's second most influential court.
Filling the three vacancies would make the balance seven-to-four
— although there is a senior bench with six judges who hear some cases,
five of whom were Republican appointees.
Republicans have a counter to the President's plan: eliminate the three
vacancies or, at least, move some to other Appeals benches. It's an equally
transparent push to manipulate the balance of power on
the court — but one that faces a steep climb in a Senate still
controlled by Democrats.
With the death of Senator Lautenberg, however, even the "nuclear option" plan
looks tentative. Meaning that one likely result of the Rose Garden insurrection
may be a filibuster of some or all of today's nominees. As after so many
revolutions before, we could just end up back in the status quo.
Photo: The president walks out to the Rose Garden. (AP)
http://news.yahoo.com/meet-three-judges-could-bring-senate-knees-131832073.html
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
An impeachment to remove POTUS must include the charge of usurpation to reverse
much of the damage he wrought these last 4+ years
This would the best way to limit and repair the damage he's imposed upon US the
last 4 1/2 years. It would make null and void everything he did as POTUS. The
judges he appointed to the bench and the NLRB, would be removed and everything
they did in their professional position would be gone from the record as if it
had never been. Every appointment he made every executive order he issued (eg.
closing Gulf oil, blocking the Keystone oil pipe line, the bail outs, his tax
increases, "gifts" to his cronies and union buddies at the UAW, etal,) and
every bill he signed into law would vanish retroactively as if they never
existed.
It would leave US a mess, but not nearly the as big as the one he will leave US
with on Jan 20, 2017.
It's beginning to look like an Article V Convention may be the last opportunity
to save our country peacefully (and Congress need not be involved).
The 2nd best way to limit and repair most of the damage would be to convene
an Article V Convention. It would take a 2/3 majority of both Houses of
Congress (or 2/3 of the States) to convene, and 3/4 of the States to agree on
a p;an of action---and it would leave his past actions intact (unless a charge
of usurpation was/can be included?).
See Article V below
U.S. Constitution - Article 5
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the
legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for
proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and
purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of
three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths
thereof,
as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand
eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses
in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its
consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Q. Can an amendment be written to declare POTUS a fraud? Y not?
Isn't such Convention the ultimate power, God excepted?
When replying to this message,
plz cc: [email protected]
to assure prompt reply.
TEA Party Nation
Top Ten Tips For Getting The Most From Your TPN Membership!
http://www.teapartynation.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
I’m as mad as hell,
and I’m not going to take it any more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q
Mrs. Richard "Peggy" Martin (1935 - 2012)
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dfw/obituary.aspx?n=margaret-irene-martin-peggy&pid=159081400&fhid=12241#fbLoggedOut
http://www.legacy.com/guestbook/dfw/guestbook.aspx?n=margaret-martin&pid=159081400&sort=1
<> <> <>
--
--
To join RichsRants, send email to:
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"RichsRants" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
