Wisconsin Supreme Court Backs GOP Scheme To Rob Dem Governor Of Appointment Powers

They gave a reasonable VALID reason for blocking that vote on that candidate.... What's the Wisconsin reason for blocking this candidate?? BTW, "Democratic nominee" doesn't cut it as valid in my book....

 

So when you wrote this:

You really meant that it's only "political bullshit" if the refuse to call a vote for some reason you don't consider valid? Is that it? You didn't intend this to be a sweeping endorsement of voting on executive nominees, only an endorsement of voting on the executive nominees you like, and we're all supposed to forget about all the times that your side refused to vote on executive nominees they didn't like? Is that it?

ETA: BTW, their "reason" for not voting on Estrada was bullshit. He'd been a SCOTUS law clerk, an assistant to the solicitor general, and an assistant US attorney. The ABA unanimously rated him "well-qualified". His experience wasn't the issue. Dems just didn't want to see a Republican president promoting a Hispanic nominee. That was their real "reason" for opposing him.

 

One wonders... are you an american? Did it ever read the actual law? It begs a real question then. You blast others for not reading, and yet you won't do it yourself.

 

Do you even understand what consent means? Or did you just expect that legislatures rubber stamp your autocracy?

 

Clearly not. What they are saying is that if you find yourself governing in the minority, you might want to placate the majority in the legislature. Lots of Democratic govs are find ing out the hard way that folks actually do expect them to work with their legislatures.

 

I understand consent to be taking a vote to determine if there is consent.... unless there is a valid reason to delay a vote...

 

He had never been a judge at ANY level, which is the normal path for somebody going on to the Court of APPEALS. May not have been the primary reason, but it's a ****ing good reason....

Never actually heard of this guy before you brought him up, so I did a little legwork.

Seems he also likely perjured himself during his confirmation, like the current crop of political judges

SNIP
Now let's look at Estrada's testimony so far. He's done a great deal of bobbing and weaving to avoid candidly expressing his views about Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, he hasn't been able to come up with a plausible reason for all his evasions, and so they have hurt his credibility.

Basically, Estrada has testified that he has not had occasion to consider whether Roe was rightly or wrongly decided, having never faced an actual case or controversy requiring such an evaluation.

C'mon. Does anyone really believe this? Estrada has lived and breathed conservative legal thinking for the last almost two decades. He came of age, as an intellectual and lawyer, during the Robert Bork hearings, when Roe played a central role in the defeat of a conservative icon's Supreme Court nomination. In addition, Estrada clerked at the Supreme Court at the time when the elder Bush Administration first asked the Court to formally reconsider Roe. And after that, he went to the Solicitor General's office, where issues of constitutional interpretation are the very stuff of daily life.
ENDSNIP

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-c...and-what-we-can-do-to-improve-the-system.html

The D's stopped that particular liar, but they couldn't keep doing it unfortunately.....

 

That's not evidence of a lie. Whenever anyone says "Basically, so-and-so said _____", red flags and alarm bells should be going off in your head. Why didn't he supply an actual quote? Why did he rely on his own interpretation of what Estrada said? Those are warning signs that the liar here is in fact the author, not Estrada. If you have evidence that there was, in reality, a case that Estrada worked on that required him to evaluate the merits of the Roe decision, name the case, or concede that you don't have any evidence of a lie by Estrada, and that you slandered him just after hearing about him for the first time.

 

And you think that you're the arbiter of what are and are not "valid" reasons, rather than the legislative body in charge of whether or not they consent to a nominee?

 

Yep... and only me...

I go on published reports and vote results... Neither exist in Wisconsin...

 

What? Should Miguel Estrada have taken a seat on the appeals court then, since he never had a majority vote against him?

 

If it were "a ****ing good reason", those same Democrats would be voting against Biden's Circuit Court nominees that have "never been a judge at ANY level". In actuality, they're merrily approving them, because they are liars (and racists), and they weren't opposing Estrada because he had not been a judge, but because he was a Hispanic appointed by a Republican president.

 

Do you seriously not know the difference between an Appellate Court and a Circuit/District Court??

Oh my..... starting at square one, I see...

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...,decisions of federal administrative agencies.

 

I do, but you might want to re-examine if you do. "District" courts are not the same thing as "Circuit" courts. Once again, you appear to have failed to read your own citation (or at least comprehend it):

For example, when people are laughing at the "Ninth Circuit" (colloquially referred to as the "Ninth Circus"), they're talking about the appellate court formally known as the "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit". They are one of the 13 appellate-level courts in our federal system (one for each of the 12 regional "circuits" plus the "U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit" to which Estrada was nominated).

Now that you've been educated a bit, to which court level do you think I was referring when I wrote "Biden's Circuit Court nominees"? The lower district-level courts or the higher-level circuit courts of appeals? Think hard about this. I'd really hate for you to post something in haste that made you look like a fool. I've provided some highlights that will hopefully help you clue in on the correct answer and make you aware of your error.

 

"The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals."

Therefore, Circuit could refer to either the Lower (District) court or the Higher (Appeals) court in that Circuit. What you meant, I have no idea.. making 2 of us...

 

"Circuit Court" is used by anyone with even a modest bit of knowledge (clearly not you) to refer to the higher (appeals) courts. It's used that way consistently. You're simply wrong about this and making a fool of yourself. For example, here's a recent White House press release:

President Biden Names Seventeenth Round of Judicial Nominees | The White House

It groups the nominees under two separate headings: "Circuit Court" (referring to nominees to the higher appeals courts) and "District Court" (referring to nominees to the lower district courts). They did that because, even though this White House is grossly incompetent, even they grasp that the phrase "Circuit Court" refers to the higher appeals courts. Everyone who is even passingly-familiar with the federal court system uses those terms in this way. You're simply wrong here, and embarrassing yourself. Eat your crow and we can move on.

 

I'll agree that some are using the shortcut "Circuit" to refer primarily to the Court of Appeals and not the combination of Appeals and District Courts in that circuit.

Still, the technical names are Courts of Appeals and District Courts... as my government link clearly shows...

Use what you like... I'll likely be able to decipher what you are going for.... eventually...

 

"some"? LMAO! You just can't admit you were wrong, can you? Everybody who knows anything about the federal court system uses the term "Circuit" to refer to appeals courts.

No, "courts of appeal" is NOT the "technical" name. Their "technical" / formal names are "United States Court of Appeals for the ____ Circuit". For example:

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/
etc.

District courts don't use the word "circuit" in their names. The circuit courts of appeals do. That's why they are commonly referred to as "Circuit Courts", and district courts are not.

Anyway, I'm glad you'll now be able to "decipher" what I (and everyone else) mean when I (and we) refer to "circuit courts".

Now, circling back to this post:

Anything else you'd like to say about that? Maybe an apology you'd like to issue?

ETA: we haven't even gotten to the fun part yet where you try to defend Democrats voting against Estrada because he didn't work as a judge, and yet they're now supporting Biden's nominees (to the same higher-level federal "circuit courts") who also haven't worked as a judge. Hypocrisy? Definitely.

 

Thanks for that admission.... awfully big of you...

Let's just hope Wisconsin voters won't ignore this political nonsense in 2022 and beyond....

MAGA = Unethical Cheater