[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14611.msg156564#msg156564 date=1455567155]
ColoradoTree, I think your analysis is well done.

That said, my recollection is that the Democrats regularly used the fillibuster to thwart Pres. Bush's judicial nominees (although it didnt affect a Supreme Ct nominee) so the precedent of not allowing a vote on a President's nominee seems, unfortunately, to have been established.

But the bottom line is politics is becoming increasingly polarized, and this action by the Republicans, which I hope they are just using for leverage but wouldnt bet on it, is just one more step in that direction. And for those who think this polarization is overwhelmingly caused by Republicans, well, let's just say we disagree.

I used to watch the nominations process closely but no longer.  I am linking an old Politifact piece.  as of 2013: "By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...have-been/
[/quote]

Thanks for the information. My info is more limited to nominees in the GWB administration, when it seemed that the Dems were ratcheting up the blocking of judicial nominees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W...troversies

I am not surprised that there is more blocking of nominees under President Obama, because polarization is getting worse. But the Democrats did more than their share under GWB, and the Republicans have ratcheted it up, and I suspect that the losing party in November will ratchet it up even more.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14611.msg156564#msg156564 date=1455567155]
ColoradoTree, I think your analysis is well done.

That said, my recollection is that the Democrats regularly used the fillibuster to thwart Pres. Bush's judicial nominees (although it didnt affect a Supreme Ct nominee) so the precedent of not allowing a vote on a President's nominee seems, unfortunately, to have been established.

But the bottom line is politics is becoming increasingly polarized, and this action by the Republicans, which I hope they are just using for leverage but wouldnt bet on it, is just one more step in that direction. And for those who think this polarization is overwhelmingly caused by Republicans, well, let's just say we disagree.

I used to watch the nominations process closely but no longer.  I am linking an old Politifact piece.  as of 2013: "By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...have-been/
[/quote]

Thanks for the information. My info is more limited to nominees in the GWB administration, when it seemed that the Dems were ratcheting up the blocking of judicial nominees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W...troversies

I am not surprised that there is more blocking of nominees under President Obama, because polarization is getting worse. But the Democrats did more than their share under GWB, and the Republicans have ratcheted it up, and I suspect that the losing party in November will ratchet it up even more.