|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jun 21, 2012 12:12:39 GMT -5
I do not think that this has been mentioned to this point:
There are currently 74 federal judicial vacancies, and 32 nominations pending, held by the Senate.
Judicial holds have been a problem for years, especially as elections near, and the party that does not hold the executive obstructs and delays appointments in hopes of winning the white house, and appointing different nominees.
My proposal is to remove the incentive to hold up the confirmation process in this way by changing our laws (and possibly our constitution) so that appointments for judgeships on federal courts must be acted on even if there is a change of administration.
Judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. Let's treat them that way.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 21, 2012 14:00:07 GMT -5
So you're proposing a grievance that would suggest having a time limit before a vote is forced on these appointments? I agree with this. Its a shame to see good people denied their ability to do their jobs because of political BS like this.
I think 180 days is the absolute max that we can expect anyone to wait for an approval. Force the vote by then OR the person automatically gets the position. That way if there are nay votes for that appointment, that those votes will have to be counted instead of how these limits usually work where issues just get ignored and then disappear...
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 21, 2012 17:45:43 GMT -5
I would suggest either a time limit, or simply saying the appointments remain in place, are valid, and must be voted on even if the administration changes.
I suppose the Senate could delay vote indefinitely, so time limit might be preferable, and I would be fine with what you have proposed Mr. Huttman.
I like Mike's incentive framing too...I think examining where we find incentives for politicians and others to do things that go against our principles/values will lead us in the right direction.
|
|