• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Markula rises from his coffin

Joined
Jul 29, 2012
Messages
8,287
Likes
4,501
Location
Boston
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
I sent a blurb to the vampire about not holding hearings for scj's .

his reply.....
EDWARD J. MARKEY
MASSACHUSETTS
United States Senate

April 19, 2016

Dear W.E.C
Thank you for contacting me about President Obama's nominee to the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.
The U.S. Constitution entrusts the President of the United States with the responsibility of nominating federal judges. Indeed, making judicial appointments is one of the President's most important duties. Federal judges are lifetime appointees who make decisions that greatly impact individuals, families, communities, and the entire nation. It is important that we have the best jurists on the federal bench, and that judicial vacancies are promptly filled.
Unfortunately, throughout President Obama's time in office, Senators on the other side of the aisle have slowed and obstructed the judicial appointment process. Now, they have vowed not to hold a confirmation hearing or vote on the Senate floor on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, who currently serves as Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, to serve on the Supreme Court.
No nominee to the Supreme Court has ever been treated this way. Since public confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees began in the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1916, every pending Supreme Court nominee has received a hearing, except 9 nominees who were confirmed within 11 days. In addition to holding hearings on Supreme Court nominees, the Senate Judiciary Committee has a longstanding bipartisan tradition of sending to the full Senate all pending nominees to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. For those reasons, in April, I joined my colleagues in urging the Senate's Republican leadership to consider Judge Garland's nomination on a timetable consistent with the average confirmation schedule for Supreme Court nominees since 1975 based on data from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.
One of the Senate's most important and solemn responsibilities to is to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to do their job and give Judge Garland a fair confirmation process and a vote.
Thank you again for contacting me about this issue. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. To sign up for my newsletter, visit http://www.markey.senate.gov/newsletter. You can also follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.




Sincerely,

105368d2ce6e9c81eb4655d1059e9f74

Edward J. Markey
United States Senator
 
Judicial appointments are actually about the least important of the president's duties.....unless they: A. Owe someone that has the goods on them, B. They are paying back a donor, C. Are failing at everything else in their position, D. Are pursuing an agenda and stacking the court for future favorable decisions.

Seems Zero fits about all of these categories.

Markey's aide must have copied that response from a newspaper article as I've seen the same verbiage more than once.....its getting old.
 
Judicial appointments are actually about the least important of the president's duties.....unless they: A. Owe someone that has the goods on them, B. They are paying back a donor, C. Are failing at everything else in their position, D. Are pursuing an agenda and stacking the court for future favorable decisions.

Seems Zero fits about all of these categories.

Markey's aide must have copied that response from a newspaper article as I've seen the same verbiage more than once.....its getting old.

The courts are already incredibly stacked. Any non-D president should feel obligated to attempt to stack the courts the other way to achieve some sort of balance. Democrats control something like 9 out of 13 districts? Tons of terrible case law is being churned out by activist judges all over the country.
 
The courts are already incredibly stacked. Any non-D president should feel obligated to attempt to stack the courts the other way to achieve some sort of balance. Democrats control something like 9 out of 13 districts? Tons of terrible case law is being churned out by activist judges all over the country.

Ok, so what part of my post did you not understand?
 
Back
Top Bottom