2 ms·
Points for honesty, but unless other HN readers share your own particular political preferences, saying "I want it!" isn't exactly a compelling policy argument.
by declan 13y ago
Points for honesty, but unless other HN readers share your own particular political preferences, saying "I want it!" isn't exactly a compelling policy argument. I mean, I want ponies.
If you're right that the 11th Circuit is overworked, then that point actually cuts against your argument: let's put more judges there where they need more help, and not the DC Circuit.
- saalweachter 13y agoI think it's a much easier argument to make. It is not necessary to convince people that they want the President's nominees -- presuming they are qualified -- confirmed to the judiciary. It is only necessary to convince people that it is fair for the President's nominees to be confirmed. People like fairness, so it's an easy argument. The system is, we have these seats, created by acts of Congress, which need to be filled. The President nominates candidates -- ideally candidates recommended by the Congressmen in the region, for regional appointments -- and the Senate vets them, and confirms or denies their appointment. The Republicans, however, aren't playing fair: they have been refusing to even allow votes on the candidates, even while admitting the candidates are qualified. Furthermore, they are not cooperating in the nomination process, refusing to recommend candidates to the President. It's not fair, and everything after that is camouflage. If it was really a concern about the workload of the judiciary, and act of Congress could add or remove seats as necessary. But it isn't, and Congress isn't acting -- they are refusing to act, never in good faith and rarely at all.