• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

He was just taking issues with the numbers of appointed judges I provided for him from Obama and past Presidents. I gave him these numbers in response to his assertion Obama was stonewalled by the GOP on appointments (which seemed to insinuate Obama did not get to make many appointments). I just posted numbers. And then he presumed the numbers I posted meant nominees instead of successful appointments (which was not the case). Seems it would be good for the thread if we can move past basic facts about how many judges each President successfully appointed. The point is simple, Obama did just fine when it came to getting judges appointed successfully.
 
"Once the Senate holds a confirmation vote, with a majority voting to confirm, the nominee becomes a Federal Judge."

Not when confirmation votes are never held.

This
 
As much as I hate to say this, DM and junebug are right on this issue. Although Junebug's equivocation on the EO in question portends another horseshit legal opinion to come.
 
"All presidential administrations have vacancies. But an analysis of appointments data by ProPublica shows that President Obama hasn’t kept up with his predecessors in filling them. A greater share of presidentially appointed positions that require Senate confirmation were sitting vacant at the end of Obama’s first term than at the end of Bill Clinton’s or George W. Bush’s first terms.

At least 68 of the positions remain vacant, including 43 that have been vacant for more than a year.

The vacancies have been spread across dozens of different departments and agencies, with some hit harder than others. At the Department of the Interior, for instance, six of its 18 appointed positions were vacant at the end of Obama’s first term. The department had three vacancies midway through Clinton’s presidency and only one midway through Bush’s."
 

OK. Acknowledged and correct.

That doesn't change the fact the number of Obama's appointments (again, nominees who, in fact, became judges) are comparable with those of past administrations.

Every President fails to get nominees appointed. That's how the system works. I've seen people here get their panties in a wad that Trump will have 4 or 8 years to get whoever he wants on the bench. For starters he needs vacancies to fill. And he doesn't even have that approval guaranty today and he may not even have a GOP majority in the Senate in 2 years, much less 4 or 8 (which would make approvals less likely).
 
Well, as Junebug and I have both tried to point out to you, getting a judge to sit does not mean the judge is your lap dog. You initially wrote he and the Republicans won't appoint anyone who will get in his way. And we are both trying to make note that our courts don't work this way. When you successfully complete a Federal judicial appointment that person gets to sit for life in the chair. They are not beholden to you on any issue.

You have now said that isn't what you meant. OK. You should be clearer about what you mean then.

The conversation then moved onto whether Trump would "stack" the courts. And the math bears out over the history of our country that no President gets to "stack" the courts. Yes, he will have many nominees get successfully appointed. But that does not mean (a) the courts will be stacked, and (b) that they will be his lap dog on every single issue.

This order is a prime example. It appears to be butchered both in how it was written and executed. The courts will do their job.

You may not like every decision that is made. And I won't like every decision that is made. But I also know that you are out of your depth trying to discuss judicial process and how decisions are made and supported. Both Junebug and I felt like you were suggesting our judicial system is nothing more than a collection of kangaroo courts. History simply does not support this. If that wasn't your point, say so.

I was pretty clear, DeacMan. Even your restating of what I said is pretty clear. I didn't say Trump will remove any judges who get in his way. I didn't say Trump will control judges. I said he will appoint people who won't get in his way as a follow up to what I've already posted. I think the Muslim ban will be a litmus test for the next SCOTUS nominee.

The flip side of my argument is that Trump and Republicans will appoint judges they believe will overturn his EOs. I don't think any of us think that's the case.
 
Again, he appointed 325 Federal judges during his Presidency. These are judges who were approved and confirmed to sit. That is just a fact. As are the numbers for all other Presidents I posted. They are just facts.

Appreciate your civility, but I respectfully disagree.

""Since taking control of the Senate in early 2015, Republicans have confirmed only 17 federal judges, a historically low number. The Senate confirmed just 11 judges in 2015, the fewest since 1960. There have been only two appellate court judges approved since Republicans took control, with seven appeals court nominations left pending. If the Senate doesn't confirm any appellate judges this year, it will have confirmed the fewest since the 1897-98 session, when there were just 25 circuit court judges nationwide, compared with 179 now."
 
As much as I hate to say this, DM and junebug are right on this issue. Although Junebug's equivocation on the EO in question portends another horseshit legal opinion to come.

I have not read whatever equivocation you are noting. What I do know though as I sit here watching people going bonkers on the news shows is that both the EO and the judicial stays that have been implemented are both being turned into things they really aren't.

This EO is not a permanent ban. It is a temporary halt.

The judicial actions that have been taken are not permanent actions. They too are temporary in nature, temporary stays.

When legal process meets an emotionally charged political issue the result is usually a whole lot of conflation. So far the courts have done their job. They've looked at the order. They've determined irreparable harm may come to individuals directly impacted by the order and they've put a stay in place so they can take a closer look at the order to see if it meets legal standards. That's where things sit. The system has worked.

Going forward I strongly suspect this order has a ton of holes in it and will need to be taken back - the idea you'd sign an order like this without first having it reviewed by legal experts is so friggin' dumb (and that appears to have happened). And I'd also expect in some form or fashion the administration will be able to get an order in place that is similar in form to the present order that is stayed - the standards of administrative law being what they are and have been.

To me, what this all still comes back to, is the vetting process. What specifically is asked under the old policy and what is it the President and his administration feels needs to be changed. And I still can't find clear details on either of those fronts.
 
Appreciate your civility, but I respectfully disagree.

""Since taking control of the Senate in early 2015, Republicans have confirmed only 17 federal judges, a historically low number. The Senate confirmed just 11 judges in 2015, the fewest since 1960. There have been only two appellate court judges approved since Republicans took control, with seven appeals court nominations left pending. If the Senate doesn't confirm any appellate judges this year, it will have confirmed the fewest since the 1897-98 session, when there were just 25 circuit court judges nationwide, compared with 179 now."

You can disagree, but you are swaying into the world of alternative facts ONW. Obama successfully appointed 325 Federal judges. I get that you are upset he did not get to appoint more. But he did successfully appoint 325 Federal judges, which is the exact same number his predecessor was able to successfully appoint.
 
You can disagree, but you are swaying into the world of alternative facts ONW. Obama successfully appointed 325 Federal judges. I get that you are upset he did not get to appoint more. But he did successfully appoint 325 Federal judges, which is the exact same number his predecessor was able to successfully appoint.

I agree that he was able to appoint as many judges as his predecessors. I do not agree that the number of appointees confirmed was equivalent.
 
I was pretty clear, DeacMan. Even your restating of what I said is pretty clear. I didn't say Trump will remove any judges who get in his way. I didn't say Trump will control judges. I said he will appoint people who won't get in his way as a follow up to what I've already posted. I think the Muslim ban will be a litmus test for the next SCOTUS nominee.

The flip side of my argument is that Trump and Republicans will appoint judges they believe will overturn his EOs. I don't think any of us think that's the case.

I'm just going to put aside the notion you were clear. Suffice to say more than one person took issue with your initial statement. As for the above.

1 - I never said he'd remove judges. Nor did I accuse you of saying he would. Because he can't. These are lifetime appointments.

2 - I never said he'd control judges. Nor did I accuse you of saying he'd out and out control them. Because he can't.

3 - I have no idea what you mean by he will appoint people who won't get in his way. That seems to imply judges owe him something or that they won't exercise independent judgement or that they'll just always agree with his policies and not worry about whether those policies are legal. And that's just wrong. Again, as has been pointed out to your repeatedly, you have no idea what a judge will do when they sit on the bench. There are literally tens of thousands of issues or rulings a judge could be asked to make. No President can know (a) a judge's political viewpoint on every single political issue, much more (b) how the judge will apply legal standards to issues that come before him or her.

No legal system is perfect. But ours is really darn good.
 
I agree that he was able to appoint as many judges as his predecessors. I do not agree that the number of appointees confirmed was equivalent.

I know wiki isn't the end all be all of sources, but it shows 268 district court judges, 55 court of appeals judges and 2 SCOTUS justices nominated and confirmed (with confirmation dates and votes) for Obama. For GWB, it shows 261 district, 62 court of appeals, and 2 SCOTUS nominated and confirmed. That's 325 each. Where is the disagreement?
 
I agree that he was able to appoint as many judges as his predecessors. I do not agree that the number of appointees confirmed was equivalent.

Seeing as how those are one and the same thing, you are not making sense. If your point is he had a higher percentage of nominees held up than his predecessors, I've not looked at it. But sure, that could be true.
 
Seeing as how those are one and the same thing, you are not making sense. If your point is he had a higher percentage of nominees held up than his predecessors, I've not looked at it. But sure, that could be true.

More nominations were held up than his predecessors is my only contention. I'm sure Trump's eventually will be as well.
 
I think the Muslim ban will be a litmus test for the next SCOTUS nominee.

The odds are astronomically high a "Muslim ban" will never get to the Supreme Court. What we have in place today is a temporary travel ban from 7 countries. If it specifically targets a religion it will be halted before it ever gets to the SC. It could be rewritten to pass legal scrutiny and have a similar impact. But then it won't be a "Muslim ban".

We'd be well served to focus on what the hell the vetting process specifically asks and gets at today and why the administration thinks it is flawed. That's the core issue and I really can't find anything with a ton of detail on what is and is not allowed to be asked of potential immigrants who go through a ton of vetting today. There's lots on the process at a very general level. But not much on the specifics. What is it, specifically that is being asked and not being asked. And why are those questions not being asked in other places.

Also these 7 countries on Trump's list are the same 7 countries where the Obama administration put people through significant vetting to obtain refugee status. So what, exactly, happens in vetting today (what questions are and are not permitted to be asked), why does this administration think the vetting is flawed and, given the hyperbolic reaction of the press about how other countries are not on the list, should other countries be on the list?
 
Yeah, I've seen overview of the "process". What really is needed is what is and is not asked and how it is asked. The aim of vetting, presumably, is to assure the safety of our citizens and other legal residents. I've seen varying reports about the depth of the questions as well as questions that are off limits. I can't find any reliable sources on that front. And, at the end of the day, that is what matters to this whole thing. The whole story here is ridiculously conflated right now.

This new temporary ban is for the same 7 countries where the Obama admin does vetting. It follows this administration thinks the vetting needs to be improved. What is it that needs to be improved? Instead we are hearing about why other countries are not impacted, etc. Is the argument this process should extend elsewhere or are folks just pissed the vetting in these 7 countries exists at all or that it is being called into question? Given no one really knows all the details (because they aren't reported) we aren't even having a real discussion about this issue. And it doesn't help that the new administration butchered their construction and execution of this new EO.
 
Here's some actual information about those countries which is coming from the very conservative Cato Institute:

https://www.cato.org/blog/little-national-security-benefit-trumps-executive-order-immigration

Tomorrow, President Trump is expected to sign an executive order enacting a 30-day suspension of all visas for nationals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015. Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemini have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period."

The number of Americans killed by people from those countries on our soil over the past FORTY years is ZERO!

Yep, the EO really protects us!
 
Just reading about he chaos at Dulles. Un fucking real that anyone supports this shit. And then Trump, tweeting like the coward he is, says that it is "going well" while octogenarians are denied their meds.

This the America that, I guess, terrified little BSF and BKF want. They think it is so tough and alpha to ban people, but it is the epitome of a shrinking violet little wimp to wall off and hide in the panic room. Trump is an extension of this perpetual fear they live in, confused and ignorant to facts and effective solutions, they instead opt for walls and bans, cowering in the corner and gripping their pea shooter and biting the covers.
 
Back
Top