Graham emerges as go-to ally for Biden's judicial picks

[Right_in_Virginia]

Graham emerges as go-to ally for Biden's judicial picks
The Hill, Nov 26, 2021

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went viral during the Trump administration, and bolstered his conservative cred, with a fiery defense of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. But now, he is quietly emerging as one of the GOP's most frequent supporters of President Biden's judicial nominees.

The evolution is the latest turn for the South Carolina Republican and former Judiciary Committee chair — regarded by his critics as a political chameleon but one known for his relationships with Democrats and willingness to shift within his own party.

Graham’s support for Biden's court picks comes even as he remains deeply enmeshed with both former President Trump — touting his own judicial nominees — and faces a GOP base deeply antagonistic toward Biden and congressional Democrats.


More:  https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/583111-graham-emerges-as-go-to-ally-for-bidens-judicial-picks

[Right_in_Virginia]

Why?  Does he not understand who he's supposed to work for?

But by all means, let's reward this Republican Senate caucus with majority status.

[Killer Clouds]

Grahamnesty has always been a 2 faced RINO that is not to be trusted.

[Kamaji]

Well, the question is:  are the judicial nominees he's supporting moderates, or fire-breathing leftists?

The federal judiciary constantly needs new judges, and if a democrat nominates someone who is not wholly unacceptable, then it may be reasonable to vote for such a nominee.  For example, suppose there's a person who's been a District Court judge for 10 years, and whose track record, politics, and ability to keep his/her politics out of his/her decisions are all well-known facts, then if that person tends to keep their personal politics out of their decision-making, that person may be acceptable as a nominee for an opening on the Circuit Court.

A little more detail is needed here.

[Killer Clouds]

Well, the question is:  are the judicial nominees he's supporting moderates, or fire-breathing leftists?

The federal judiciary constantly needs new judges, and if a democrat nominates someone who is not wholly unacceptable, then it may be reasonable to vote for such a nominee.  For example, suppose there's a person who's been a District Court judge for 10 years, and whose track record, politics, and ability to keep his/her politics out of his/her decisions are all well-known facts, then if that person tends to keep their personal politics out of their decision-making, that person may be acceptable as a nominee for an opening on the Circuit Court.

A little more detail is needed here.

Any judge that does as you suggest will not be nominated by the DCP. That is unacceptable to them.

[Kamaji]

Any judge that does as you suggest will not be nominated by the DCP. That is unacceptable to them.

Maybe so, maybe not.  The only way to find out is to find out who all the judicial nominees are, and which ones are being supported by Graham.

It is not feasible to simply stop approving new judges to the federal courts so long as Biden is in power; the courts will simply cease to function.

[Killer Clouds]

Maybe so, maybe not.  The only way to find out is to find out who all the judicial nominees are, and which ones are being supported by Graham.

It is not feasible to simply stop approving new judges to the federal courts so long as Biden is in power; the courts will simply cease to function.

So corrupting the court even more than it is already is better than stopping it? Graham is and always has been a RINO and a horrible hypocrite. The only person he cares about is himself and possibly his boyfriend. He does nothing for the people unless it benefits him.

[Kamaji]

So corrupting the court even more than it is already is better than stopping it? Graham is and always has been a RINO and a horrible hypocrite. The only person he cares about is himself and possibly his boyfriend. He does nothing for the people unless it benefits him.

Never said that.  But there's no point in repeating myself, 'cause you're clearly not interested in listening to what I have said.

[sneakypete]

Grahamnesty has always been a 2 faced RINO that is not to be trusted.

@Killer Clouds

BINGO!

SOB has spend his entire career trying to play both sides of the fence. He just can't be trusted.

[Kamaji]

According to the website for the federal judiciary, there are currently 78 vacancies in the District and Circuit courts, and 26 nominees pending.  The summary doesn't provide details on district court versus circuit court, but it looks like most of the vacancies are at the district court level.

Source:  https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/current-judicial-vacancies

If one wants to do the research, the link above identifies each of the pending nominees.

[libertybele]

@Killer Clouds

BINGO!

SOB has spend his entire career trying to play both sides of the fence. He just can't be trusted.

IF the voters could rid both Graham and McConnell and replace them with conservatives, the Senate might actually work to benefit this country.

[HoustonSam]

Well, the question is:  are the judicial nominees he's supporting moderates, or fire-breathing leftists?

The federal judiciary constantly needs new judges, and if a democrat nominates someone who is not wholly unacceptable, then it may be reasonable to vote for such a nominee.  For example, suppose there's a person who's been a District Court judge for 10 years, and whose track record, politics, and ability to keep his/her politics out of his/her decisions are all well-known facts, then if that person tends to keep their personal politics out of their decision-making, that person may be acceptable as a nominee for an opening on the Circuit Court.

A little more detail is needed here.

Good post @Kamaji

[Kamaji]

IF the voters could rid both Graham and McConnell and replace them with conservatives, the Senate might actually work to benefit this country.

To be fair to McConnell, however, it was he who kept Obama's nomination of Garland off the table, and who shepherded Trump's nominees through the process, and fought for them.  This led to the appointment of well over 200 federal judges at both the Supreme Court, Circuit Court, and District Court levels.

Without McConnell's willingness to actively and forcefully manage the nomination approval process for these judges, President Trump would have had many fewer appointees to the federal bench.

And that - the number of judges appointed by President Trump - will be a truly lasting legacy of the Trump presidency since those judges all have lifetime tenure, and most of them are in their 40s or early 50s.

So, while kudos go to President Trump for nominating the judges who were ultimately confirmed, kudos also go to McConnell for seeing that process through and making sure that President Trump has the second-highest number of judicial appointments of all presidents to-date (Carter had more, with 260).

In particular, McConnell gets high marks for denying Garland a shot during the Obama (mal)administration - and we can now see what an invaluable act that was - and for getting all three of President Trump's Supreme Court nominees through.

Source:  https://news.ballotpedia.org/2020/11/03/trump-has-appointed-second-most-federal-judges-through-november-1-of-a-presidents-fourth-year/

[Right_in_Virginia]

Maybe so, maybe not.  The only way to find out is to find out who all the judicial nominees are, and which ones are being supported by Graham.

It is not feasible to simply stop approving new judges to the federal courts so long as Biden is in power; the courts will simply cease to function.

Nonsense @Kamaji  The courts will function just fine with whatever number of judges are on the bench .... always have and always will. Just take a peek back at Obama's second term.

It should be a priority goal of the Senate GOP caucus to prevent a lifetime appointment to the federal bench for ANY nominee of this regime.  There are no moderate communists.

[Kamaji]

Nonsense @Kamaji  The courts will function just fine with whatever number of judges are on the bench .... always have and always will. Just take a peek back at Obama's second term.

It should be a poriority goal of the Senate GOP caucus to prevent a lifetime appointment to the federal bench for ANY nominee of this regime.  There are no moderate communists.

With all due respect, I disagree.  Justice delayed is often justice denied, and the more vacant positions there are, the higher the caseloads on the remaining judges, the longer parties will wait for a resolution of their cases.

Furthermore, the judiciary should not become a political bouncy ball, to be bandied about in a strictly partisan fashion whenever one or the other political party wants to score points.

I am not saying that Graham is acting all hunky-dory, but what I am saying is that he is not on totally weak ground by finding constructive ways to get the lower courts fully staffed, particularly the trial courts (i.e., the District Courts).

[Right_in_Virginia]

With all due respect, I disagree.  Justice delayed is often justice denied, and the more vacant positions there are, the higher the caseloads on the remaining judges, the longer parties will wait for a resolution of their cases.

Furthermore, the judiciary should not become a political bouncy ball, to be bandied about in a strictly partisan fashion whenever one or the other political party wants to score points.

What are you talking about @Kamaji ??  Obama had over 100 open judge seats and no one was denied justice.

Furthermore, the judiciary is inherently part of the political process.  If the purity you speak of was on the Founders' hearts, they would have placed the confirmation process outside the Congress.  But they wanted political factions to get a vote on a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. This was another of the brilliant checks and balances on the Executuve branch AND the Judiciary itself.

The Founders placed the responsibility for weeding out anti-American, anti-Constitution judges to the Senate.  And with all due respect, no matter how righteous you may think your position is....the Senate should NOT dismiss this sacred responsibility because you find partisanship messy.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I am not saying that Graham is acting all hunky-dory, but what I am saying is that he is not on totally weak ground by finding constructive ways to get the lower courts fully staffed, particularly the trial courts (i.e., the District Courts).

It matters most with whom the courts are staffed, @Kamaji

[Kamaji]

It matters most with whom the courts are staffed, @Kamaji

Yes, it does, but each nominee should be given fair consideration, and his or her record taken into account, and the mere fact that he or she was appointed by a democrat president or a republican president should not be the determinative factor.  This is particularly the case if the individual has already been serving as a judge on either another federal court, or on a reputable state court, and his or her conduct, in particular how and to what extent his or her personal political preferences influence his or her rulings, can be taken into account.

This is another perfect example of "don't do it unless one wants the opposition to do it back the next time they have sufficient power."  If all of Biden's nominees were rejected by the republicans simply because Biden appointed them, then the democrats will play that game right back at us when the shoe is on the other foot.

We got lucky as hell that McConnell was able to force enough party unity to get Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett onto the Supreme Court, and was able to shepherd another 200 plus Trump nominees onto the lower courts.  If we pull such a short-sighted litmus test, the process will become disfunctional and the only way new judges will ever be appointed is during those few periods when one political party has both the White House and a commanding majority in the Senate.  That is a recipe for making sure that only the most partisan judges ever get on the bench, and that will inevitably damage the courts.

That is not a game that should be played lightly. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yes, it does, but each nominee should be given fair consideration, and his or her record taken into account, and the mere fact that he or she was appointed by a democrat president or a republican president should not be the determinative factor.  This is particularly the case if the individual has already been serving as a judge on either another federal court, or on a reputable state court, and his or her conduct, in particular how and to what extent his or her personal political preferences influence his or her rulings, can be taken into account.

This is another perfect example of "don't do it unless one wants the opposition to do it back the next time they have sufficient power."  If all of Biden's nominees were rejected by the republicans simply because Biden appointed them, then the democrats will play that game right back at us when the shoe is on the other foot.

We got lucky as hell that McConnell was able to force enough party unity to get Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett onto the Supreme Court, and was able to shepherd another 200 plus Trump nominees onto the lower courts.  If we pull such a short-sighted litmus test, the process will become disfunctional and the only way new judges will ever be appointed is during those few periods when one political party has both the White House and a commanding majority in the Senate.  That is a recipe for making sure that only the most partisan judges ever get on the bench, and that will inevitably damage the courts.

That is not a game that should be played lightly.

It's not a damn game @Kamaji   It's a responsibility; and one of the most important and influential ones they have.  Graham has no business on the Judiciary Committee if he does not understand that this is where the future is won or lost.

[Kamaji]

It's not a damn game @Kamaji   It's a responsibility; and one of the most important and influential ones they have.  Graham has no business on the Judiciary Committee if he does not understand that this is where the future is won or lost.

Exactly.  It's not a game, so it shouldn't become a matter of simple-minded one-issue partisanship, and the political party of the nominating president is the apotheosis of single-issue politics.

Each nominee should be evaluated on his or her merits, and objections taken only to those who are truly objectionable.

A District Court judge is not the sort of hill that a Supreme Court Justice is, and limited political capital should therefore not be gratuitously spent on opposing a District Court judge simply because he or she was nominated by a president of the opposite political party.

[HoustonSam]

Nonsense @Kamaji  The courts will function just fine with whatever number of judges are on the bench .... always have and always will. Just take a peek back at Obama's second term.

It should be a priority goal of the Senate GOP caucus to prevent a lifetime appointment to the federal bench for ANY nominee of this regime.  There are no moderate communists.

This is not a sustainable position.  It will simply lead to all R-nominated judges being ignored whenever Ds have a Senate majority.  But then again the idea is being advocated by someone who also can't understand that had Pence rejected state-certified D electoral votes, Harris and every other D VP would have rejected state-certified R electoral votes in the future.

Just like we need R office holders who recognize that "triggering" the Ds is the sugar-high junk food of governance, we also need advocates who can think more than five minutes into the future.

The Federal judiciary exists as an independent branch for a reason; "advise and consent" includes plenty of authority to stop unworthy nominees without engaging in blanket, unthinking rejection of all nominees for political purposes.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Exactly.  It's not a game, so it shouldn't become a matter of simple-minded one-issue partisanship, and the political party of the nominating president is the apotheosis of single-issue politics.

Each nominee should be evaluated on his or her merits, and objections taken only to those who are truly objectionable.

A District Court judge is not the sort of hill that a Supreme Court Justice is, and limited political capital should therefore not be gratuitously spent on opposing a District Court judge simply because he or she was nominated by a president of the opposite political party.

You've understood none of what I have said @Kamaji   But, I will defend your right to a pollyanna strategy.

BTW, if/when the cold war turns hot, please walk by my foxhole,  I'll not be in the mood to explain why it's important for us to go on the offensive.

Enjoy your evening.   

[sneakypete]

Why?  Does he not understand who he's supposed to work for?

@Right_in_Virginia

Of course it does. It works for Lady Lindsey.

[sneakypete]

IF the voters could rid both Graham and McConnell and replace them with conservatives, the Senate might actually work to benefit this country.

@libertybele

No kidding!

Lady Lindsey offends me the most because it is one of the sharpest cookies in the Senate cookie bowl,and COULD have been a HUGE asset for conservatism. Seems like it votes right just enough times to keep it's seat.

[sneakypete]

To be fair to McConnell, however, it was he who kept Obama's nomination of Garland off the table, and who shepherded Trump's nominees through the process, and fought for them.  This led to the appointment of well over 200 federal judges at both the Supreme Court, Circuit Court, and District Court levels.

Without McConnell's willingness to actively and forcefully manage the nomination approval process for these judges, President Trump would have had many fewer appointees to the federal bench.

And that - the number of judges appointed by President Trump - will be a truly lasting legacy of the Trump presidency since those judges all have lifetime tenure, and most of them are in their 40s or early 50s.

So, while kudos go to President Trump for nominating the judges who were ultimately confirmed, kudos also go to McConnell for seeing that process through and making sure that President Trump has the second-highest number of judicial appointments of all presidents to-date (Carter had more, with 260).

In particular, McConnell gets high marks for denying Garland a shot during the Obama (mal)administration - and we can now see what an invaluable act that was - and for getting all three of President Trump's Supreme Court nominees through.

Source:  https://news.ballotpedia.org/2020/11/03/trump-has-appointed-second-most-federal-judges-through-november-1-of-a-presidents-fourth-year/

@Kamaji

Can't argue with any of that. Want to because of some of the slimy deals he did sign off on,but can't.