Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


August 5, 2010

FIVE Obama appointments were returned to the White House by the Senate. Chatigny, Liu (already listed on article main page) and also Butler, Chen, and McConnell Jr. - someone needs to add those other three since their nominations were returned to the White House and they should be listed as well. LeahBethM (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it could be argued that Butler/Chen/McConnell qualify as "appointment controversies", having a judicial nomination returned to the White House isn't by itself sufficient to classify a nomination as controversial. For example, on August 3, 2001, Democrats returned a whole batch of George W. Bush's nominations, including Harris Hartz (confirmed 99-0), Barrington Daniels Parker, Jr. (confirmed 100-0), and Lavenski Smith (confirmed by voice vote). Billyboy01 (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, perhaps the article title should be revised to say 'appointment controversies and rejections' or another page for rejections should be created so that at least the rejections are listed and kept track of somewhere since they were originally 'appointed' by President Obama. LeahBethM (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to define "controversies"

There was some controversy regarding Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen, yet neither are listed in this article. TheUnknown285 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why has there been such an article created on Wikipedia? Are there articles on Richard Nixon's controversial judicial appointments? Can someone explain the rational behind this article, please? Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 03:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Milano Keenan

Keenan was confirmed unanimously by the Senate so calling her nomination controversial seems ridiculous. Yes, cloture did have to be filed but it won ninety-nine votes, with no dissenters. It was clearly more of a procedural issue than a controversy. I propose removing her nomination from this page. Anyone disagree? --Lincolnite (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles in the series provide an overview of the broader judicial controversies during a presidency, not just those limited to individual nominees. This article describes the Keenan nomination as "failed, stalled or filibustered", which it clearly was. Requiring a cloture vote on a judicial nominee, whatever the reason, is rare. In this case, it's indicative of the tone of the 111th congress, with Republicans widely employing a silent filibuster to exact retribution for Democratic filibusters during the Bush administration. Keenan got caught up in that controversy. The article should be expanded to mention this rather than removing mention of Keenan. Billyboy01 (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwin Liu no longer failed? (dubious/discuss)

I know he recently made it, but not sure of details. Is he no longer failed? 67.77.174.6 (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liu was recently sworn in as a California Supreme Court justice. This makes him a successful (and non-controversial, for that matter) appointee of California Governor Jerry Brown, but it doesn't change his status as a failed Obama judicial appointment. Billyboy01 (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. If this had been a successful appointment, Liu would have become a federal judge. bd2412 T 16:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Furman

I don't think Furman warrants a separate entry in this article. I know Reid had to file for cloture in order to move the nomination to a vote, but no cloture vote was ultimately required. Reid has had to make similar procedural motions in the past (e.g., Vanaskie and Chin cloture motions), but we have not included those nominations in the article. If we do want to mention Furman, I think it would be more appropriate to mention his name in the context of a separate 112th congress section discussing the Republican response to Obama's recess appointments of Cordray, et al, similar to the sections in the Bush article. Billyboy01 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arvo Mikkanen

He probably should be moved from the "stalled" to the "failed" category now that Obama has nominated someone else for that seat. At what point do these other "returned" nominations from the end of last year move from stalled to failed? 143.231.249.137 (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Robert Bacharach

Shouldn't we add Robert E. Bacharach, nominee for the Tenth Circuit, as a stalled or failed nominee? Reid yesterday lost the cloture vote and the GOP seems to be invoking the Thurmond rule to block his confirmation, whereas Reid claims it is still to early for the application of that rule and this is just an other Republican stalling tactic in disguise. -- fdewaele, 31 July 2012, 8:37 (CET).

Nuclear option triggered

Today Harry Reid triggered the nuclear option over the stalled nominations of three nominees to the DC Court of Appeals (Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard, and Robert Wilkins). From today on the new senate rule will allow just a simple majority vote for all nominees except for the Supreme Court. The article should be updated with this information. -- fdewaele, 21 November 2013, 18:53 CET.

William Thomas

Can someone please add William Thomas to the failed nominee section. White House Gives Up On William Thomas, Gay Black Judicial Nominee Blocked By Marco Rubio LeahBethM (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- fdewaele, 8 January 2014, 8:55 CET

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

We may want to change the title of this article. Many of the nominees who weren't confirmed, particularly in 2016, weren't the subject of any particular "controversy"—the Senate Republicans just stopped processing nominations in the last year of the administration, and the nominations will lapse when Congress adjourns sine die on January 3. (We don't know yet whether Obama will renominate any or all of the candidates for the 115th Congress, but presumably they won't be confirmed then either, unless the incoming administration reaches an accommodation with home-state senators in a particular case.) Perhaps the title should focus more on nominees who weren't confirmed, for whatever reason? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't the same apply to the rest of the presidential "judicial appointment controversy" articles? I believe they generally include any nominee who was not confirmed, irrespective of any accompanying dustup. bd2412 T 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To an extent it does, although the practice of not confirming virtually anyone nominated toward the end of an administration has become more expansive during more recent times than in the past. However, I'm not sure that the other articles list every "stalled nominee" (that wording will have to be rephrased after January 3). I suppose my real concern is whether it's fair to describe someone who was nominated for a judgeship, whose qualifications no one disputes but whose nomination failed due to the timing and the election results, as the subject of a "controversy." But perhaps one could respond that the controversy is over the failure to consider and process the nominations, rather than the worthiness the individual nominees? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In principle, I would not object to renaming the entire series, so long as articles with similar content receive similar treatment. I can see how "controversies" would seem inaccurate when applied to nominations that were not themselves controversial, although I would also agree that the failure of Congress to act on qualified nominees is itself something of a controversy. bd2412 T 18:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chronological order

Fellow Wikipedians

When I found this page, I noticed that the nominations were not in chronological order. So I reorganized them to put them in order so that this would provide a more comprehensive history of the judicial controversies at the time. I also added the failed late nomination of Scott Palk of Oklahoma, who was renominated and confirmed a few months ago. Beyond that addition, there were no changes of substance. I invite you to review the changes and hope you are pleased. Let me know if I have done anything wrong. Thank you wikipedia for providing this page, as I find the topic very interesting and important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD19:EF00:9594:5D6E:9E78:785E (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Nominees

Can someone add Anne Traum and Todd E. Edelman to the section nominations that were made toward the end of Obama's tenure and later renominated? Ameet12345 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies&oldid=1265769495"