General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums'Pretty Damn Good': Why Biden's Goal to 'Trump-Proof' the Courts Has Been Deemed a Success
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/carl-gibson/112477/pretty-damn-good-why-biden-s-goal-to-trump-proof-the-courts-has-been-deemed-a-successPretty Damn Good: Why Bidens Goal to Trump-Proof the Courts Has Been Deemed a Success
by Carl Gibson | December 21, 2024 - 6:35am
from Alternet
President Joe Biden communicated his intent to confirm as many federal judges as possible before leaving office, in order to deny his successor the ability to pack the judiciary with far-right activists. That plan seems to have borne fruit, according to a new report.
In a Friday article, Politico's Anthony Adragna wrote that Democrats' "fight to Trump-proof the federal judiciary" has been an overwhelming success. On Friday night, the Democratic-run U.S. Senate confirmed Biden's 235th judicial appointment, officially putting him past President-elect Donald Trump's 234 judges with a month left to go before Biden leaves the White House.
According to NBC, among those 235 judges include one Supreme Court justice in Ketanji Brown Jackson (who replaced Justice Stephen Breyer after he retired), along with 45 powerful U.S. Court of Appeals judges, 187 U.S. District Court judges and two judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade. All federal judges serve lifelong terms, meaning many of Biden's 235 judicial appointments roughly one-quarter of the entire federal judiciary will likely be on the bench for decades to come.
snip//
When the new Republican Senate majority is sworn in next month, Durbin will hand over the reins of the Judiciary Committee to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). He has so far said he would keep the tradition of "blue slips" under his chairmanship, in which a U.S. District Court judge's nomination won't move forward unless both senators from that judge's respective state sign off on their nomination.
FBaggins
(27,804 posts)The Senate did a great job over the last four years
but the judiciary is hardly Trump proof (nor does the last batch after losing the election make much of a difference)
The judiciary still bears the stain of his first term and now he can lock in the SCOTUS majority by replacing the older republicans (effectively democrats proofing the judiciary.
babylonsister
(171,685 posts)be more grateful once these liberal judges start ruling.
FBaggins
(27,804 posts)They are likely to be almost exclusively liberal judges replacing retiring liberal judges.
Not that that's really relevant. If you reread my response, I'm not objecting to celebrating the large number of confirmed judges in this term. What I objected to was the ridiculous notion that the federal judiciary had in any sense been "trump-proofed".
As one easy counter-example - The JUDGES Act just passed the House with 29 democratic votes (after already passing the Senate unanimously). It creates 66 new federal judicial vacancies (roughly half right away). There's no way to "trump proof" those new seats.
J_William_Ryan
(2,270 posts)Perhaps not.
But history gives us a template; the glacial pace of the courts that benefited Trump as a private citizen will hobble him as president.
Details are in the link below.
In essence, when Congress refused to fund Trumps border wall, Trump had a hissy fit and declared a national emergency.
Sound familiar, doesnt it.
Trump issued a proclamation diverting funds earmarked for defense spending to build his wall of racism, bigotry, and hate. Trumps emergency declaration was challenged in court where it dragged on until the end of his term.
President Biden terminated Trumps emergency declaration.
Theres no reason why this wont work the second time around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergency_Concerning_the_Southern_Border_of_the_United_States