The Legal System

I wonder how prevalent this view, expressed by Matt Yglesias, is:

With President Barack Obama seeking to move an ambitious legislative agenda through the molasses-like United States Senate,* it was fairly easy for Mitch McConnell and his colleagues to obstruct a given personís nomination simply by threatening to drag things out. After all, Harry Reid and the White House had better things to do with their pressure floor time than quibble about district court nominees.

(Emphasis supplied.) Lawyers almost certainly overestimate the importance of the judiciary in our political system, but it seems to me non-lawyers underestimate its importance. Justice AND policy are often decided at the district court level, and of course, a lot of individual justice is served, or not, at that level. It's a lot more important than folks like Yglesias think.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Night Open Thread | The Bargaining On The Bush Tax Cuts >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    One would think that any (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 10:47:44 AM EST
    political watcher/commentator - lawyer or not - would recognize the importance of the Republicans' systematic initiative to stack the courts - even at the lowest levels - with conservative judges.  One would think that anyone paying attention to recent political history would understand that the Republicans' plan has been a pretty damn successful at reversing liberal advancements.  One would think that Democrats would prioritize the judiciary appointments - but one would think that if one thought that the Democrats had any capacity for really understanding the multifaceted Republican plan to take this country back to 1900 - or some 18th Century version of this country that never really existed as they describe it.

    I think you have misconstrued (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lacy on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    what was intended...possible because Yglesias apparently meant to say "precious floor time" but accidentally typed "pressure". That spoiled the intent at irony. The rest of the post supports the importance of confirming those appointments.

    Dems don't understand their tit-for-tat game theor (none / 0) (#3)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 11:11:10 AM EST

    This strategy is dependent on four conditions, which have allowed it to become the most successful strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma:[1]

       1. Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate
       2. If provoked, the agent will retaliate
       3. The agent is quick to forgive
       4. The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.

    Republican never cooperate and always expect the Dems to cooperate, and the Dems do cooperate without retaliation but the Republicans always retaliate and never forgive the Dems for being "socialists."

    obama repeated one of clinton's worst mistakes (none / 0) (#4)
    by Turkana on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    both should have been vetting judges right from the transition, so they could have filled every empty slot during the honeymoon. you don't get a second chance. funny how republicans do such a good job of getting their judges.

    I seriousl doubt that the Republican base (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    would tolerate judgeships being left vacant. Sad to say, but the far right has done a much better job in educating their voters on the importance of controlling the courts.

    I think I could fill the threads with all (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 11:34:21 AM EST
    of the typing etc. corrections needed on my comments.

    I seriously doubt that the Republican base

    Why doesn't Pres. Obama fill the (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    federal district court vacancies whilst Congress is not in session?  Is this more PPUS?