POLITICS - President Obama's New Federal Court Appointees

Sorry to say, fat chance President Obama will get his appointees approved.

The obstructionist Senate Republicans will see to that, especially since they have the word !SCANDAL! blocking what little logical thought might enter their psychotic minds.  It's the block-anything-Obama mentality they've had since 2008.

"Obama Moves to Fill U.S. Court of Appeals Seats, Setting Stage for Confrontation" PBS Newshour 6/4/2013

Excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour):  President Obama lashed out at Senate Republicans today for playing politics in delaying votes on past judicial nominations.  He did so at a White House Rose Garden event, announcing three nominees to fill vacancies on the 11-member U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  It's often referred to as the nation's second highest court, ruling on high-profile cases of national significance.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Time and again, congressional Republicans cynically used Senate rules and procedures to delay and even block qualified nominees from coming to a full vote.  As a result, my judicial nominees have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor.  So, this is not about principled opposition.  This is about political obstruction.

JEFFREY BROWN:  Today marked the first time the president has held an event to announce nominees to any bench other than the Supreme Court.

His choices include Patricia Ann Millett, a D.C. appellate lawyer, Georgetown University law professor Cornelia Pillard, and U.S. District Court Judge Robert Leon Wilkins.

The nominations come as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was threatening to change Senate procedure to eliminate judicial filibusters.  Today, though, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned Republicans won't go down without a fight.

POLITICS - Presidential Intrasession Recess Appointments

Reminder, this opinion is not from the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Court Rules Recess National Labor Relations Board Appointments Unconstitutional" PBS Newshour 1/25/2013

Excerpt

HARI SREENIVASAN:  A federal appeals court rejected several recess appointments made by President Obama last year, saying the moves were unconstitutional.

The president appointed three people to the National Labor Relations Board last January.  The president argued he was justified in doing so because the Senate was away for a 20-day break.

But Republicans and business groups said the Senate was still technically in session, if only for a few minutes every few days.  The panel of three judges all appointed by Republican presidents said the president had done an inappropriate end run around the Senate.

But White House spokesman Jay Carney took issue with the ruling.

JAY CARNEY, White House Spokesman:  The decision is novel and unprecedented.  It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations.  So we respectfully, but strongly disagree with the rulings.

There have been, according to the Congressional Research Service, something like 280-plus intrasession recess appointments by, again, Democratic and Republican administrations dating back to 1867.

COMMENT:  What the Senate practice of being in session for a few minutes every few days is ludicrous.  This practice is the real end run around ALL Presidents.

Also this issue is about the political gridlock in the Senate, especially with the Filibuster rule, on ALL (Democratic or Republican) Presidential appointments.

IMHO we need a Constitutional Amendment stating that all Presidential appointments must be given an up-or-down vote in the Senate within 90 days of submission or the appointment is automatically approved.

COURT SYSTEM - Catch-22 Decision

"Court overturns challenge to warrantless wiretapping" by Jaimeson Champion, Workers World

In a 2-1 vote, a three-judge panel on the Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati ruled that the plaintiffs—a coalition of groups and organizations including the ACLU, The Council on American Muslim Relations, and a host of scholars and activists—did not have sufficient evidence proving they had been targets of the government’s wiretapping program, and therefore, had no legal standing to sue in court.

Typical, a Catch-22 decision.

"Plaintiffs did not have sufficient evidence proving they had been targets of the governments wiretapping program, and therefore, had no legal standing to sue in court."

You don't have "standing" because you cannot provide evidence, which you cannot get because of secrecy that prevents you from getting the evidence.

Our so-called justice system at work... NOT!