Elizabeth Warren To Obama: Stop Nominating So Many Corporatists

[Jesus Malverde]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on Thursday called on President Obama to nominate fewer judges who have represented corporate interests and more with backgrounds working for public interest groups.

"Power is becoming more and more concentrated on one side," she said at an event organized by the left-leaning Alliance for Justice. "Well-financed corporate interests line up to fight for their own privileges and resist any change that would limit corporate excess."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/warren-corporate-judges?utm_content=buffer75ec9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[libdem4life]

1. There she goes again. Just being Elizabeth. Right on.

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. Plus these two asshats he nominated.

your post is better than prosense's white wash.




Obama recently nominated two candidates to serve on the federal bench in Georgia who raised the hackles of liberals:


Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Michael Boggs and Atlanta attorney Mark Howard Cohen. Boggs voted to keep the Confederate battle emblem as a prominent part of Georgia's state flag when he was a Georgia legislator in the early 2000s.


Cohen helped defend Georgia's voter ID law, which voting rights advocates say makes it harder for poor people and minorities to vote.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/02/elizabeth-warren-judicial-no

[ProSense]

10. Here,

"your post is better than prosense's white wash. "

...I posted that "white wash" here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024455380#post8

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. White wash ......

that's why this thread lives and yours dies.


HE NOMINATED THEM .....FACT. and yes he has nominated good ones , but I don't want a fucking balance of left and right from him.

On note, I really wouldn't mind your posts except for your single focus bias to throw propaganda into the story for your own promotion of your agenda.


You may not see it that way but many do.

[ProSense]

16. Does

"that's why this thread lives and yours dies."

...that change the facts? I can deal with all of Senator Warren's comments, not just the selective quotes. Can you?

Senator Warren Urges Greater Professional Diversity on Federal Bench

Cites New Report on Corporate Lawyer Dominance of Federal Judiciary, Calls for More Nominees With Broad Legal Experience

Washington, DC - United States Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered remarks today on "Broadening the Bench: Judicial Nominations and Professional Diversity" at an event hosted by the Alliance for Justice (AFJ). The senator advocated for greater professional diversity of the federal bench and discussed the importance of preventing a corporate capture of the federal courts.

Senator Warren noted a report from the AFJ that shows 71% of President Obama's judicial nominees have represented primarily corporate or business clients - statistics that are broadly in line with the current composition of the federal bench. "There are some really talented judges who came from the private sector..." said Senator Warren. "But I believe that diversity of experience matters. It matters that someone has represented people other than corporate clients, that they've had real experience with people who can't afford lawyers, that they've had real experience trying to fight for the public interest."

The senator explained that for years, "the judicial nominations process was largely held hostage to an intransigent Republican minority that looked for any excuse to block President Obama's efforts to nominate federal judges," and discussed the opportunity that the Senate's rules change provides the President and Senate to ensure that the next generation of judges will represent "the best and the brightest from every corner of the legal profession."

The senator also discussed the nomination of now District Court Judge Edward Chen. "President Obama stood behind the Chen nomination," said Senator Warren. "He had to re-nominate him three times over three years before the Senate finally confirmed him. When he was sworn in, Judge Chen said that despite the obstruction that he faced during this time, he never even considered withdrawing from consideration... because, ‘the federal bench is not just for people from large corporate law firms, or who represent only the wealthy, or who never speak out, or play it safe in their careers.'"

A video of the entire event is available here.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=351

[Ichingcarpenter]

18. Obama is the greatest thing

since slice bread and nothing is his fault.



There.......feel better?
I can put butter on the bread.

I will continue this debate for a while because I like the title and you keep it kicked......talking to me.

Yes.... Obama has nominated some good judges... I agree.

[ProSense]

21. Impossible

"Obama is the greatest thing since slice bread and nothing is his fault."

...there is no "greatest thing" about "slice bread."

Yuck!

[Aerows]

46. I know

He actually created the wheel and was the first human being to harness the power of fire. Everything else has been tangentially an Obama-related accomplishment, too. He might have gotten the Beubonic Plague in 1395, but he survived it and was instrumental in developing the serum for it. He might have lost a leg at Appomattox Courthouse, but he lead the way for amputees to have artificial limbs.

Every step of the way, President Obama has been there, making the world brighter, better and more beautiful for all of us.

[WillyT]

55. LOL !!! - You Bad !!!

[ProSense]

57. Exciting!!!

[ProSense]

56. Stupid comment.

He's the Messiah.

Sheesh!

[Aerows]

59. I'm pretty sure

you would recognize a stupid comment and the acidic commentary that follows one. Personally? It really doesn't bother me when "I know you are but what am I" is the best a person can come up with.

It merely illustrates the players in stark relief. Here's a shovel. Feel free to keep digging. If you need a backhoe, I'm sure I can arrange one.

[ProSense]

61. You know

"I'm pretty sure you would recognize a stupid comment and the acidic commentary that follows one."

...you're right:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024455380#post49
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024455380#post58

[Aerows]

63. You can claim to be on the court

but if your hands never touched the ball, you never really played.

Need that shovel yet, or should I schedule the backhoe?

[GoneFishin]

127. Awesome.

[RufusTFirefly]

136. President Obama is...

"the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

[UncleMuscles]

145. He is a man who built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn.

[nikto]

77. Obama nominates judges in "balance" of left and right...

GOPers ALWAYS nominate rightwingers, without fail.
Every time.


The obvious result--More and more judges LEAN TO THE RIGHT.



Empirical.

[GoneFishin]

129. Yep. Their idea of fair and balanced is FOX NEWS. Enough said.

[JDPriestly]

31. Obama should nominate liberal judges.

When Republicans are in office, they nominate far-right Republican judges, and the Democrats in Congress always "compromise" and vote for them. That is a very bad trend. We need judges with varied backgrounds. How about some ACLU lawyers sitting on the bench? That would be refreshing. Democrats need to stonewall Republicans once in a while just as Republicans stonewall Democrats.

[ProSense]

34. Senator Warren's

"Obama should nominate liberal judges."

...point wasn't about liberal vs. conservative, it was about professional back ground.

Obama has nominated liberal judges. She mentioned one in her press release: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024455380#post10

[quakerboy]

81. So theres a plethora of non corporate conservative public interest candidates out there?

And an equally large number of liberal (not Democratic party, but liberal) corporatists out there waiting to be nominated?

Its kinda like saying I like a nice balance of black and white in a black and white photo, but my point has nothing to do with whether the photo is light or dark!

[ProSense]

82. Here's all

"So theres a plethora of non corporate conservative public interest candidates out there?"

...you need to know: President Obama has already initiated the new direction Senator Warren spoke to. That was the entire point.

The trend will begin to change on his watch, another three years.

Now, carry on.

[JDPriestly]

104. She is right. We need more public interest attorneys in our courts at both the state and federal

levels. Although I must add that with the current cost of law school, the fact that a person works for a corporate firm does not mean that person is conservative. It may simply mean that they are trying to pay back a huge debt and graduated at the top of their class from law school.

[merrily]

107. yes, she mentioned ONE

[Aerows]

49. Obama isn't the problem!

It's people who criticize his policies that are the problem. If they stopped criticizing him, he'd elect far more liberal people in key positions.

See, you don't support him, and that is what makes him do very bad things that you disagree with. If you agreed with him more, he wouldn't do it anymore.

[Egalitarian Thug]

53. You never really loved him.

And you could never give him what he really needs.

[Aerows]

58. He tells me he loves me ...

He told me he loves me.

That's more than any of you got.

He's just *TOO GOOD* for all of us. *dramatic sigh, and sinking to the floor*.

He's too good I tell you!

[merrily]

109. "He's not your boyfriend."

Bill Maher.

Then again, after saying that, Maher dumped a million buck on Obama. For someone like Maher, that says love.

[ProSense]

17. Speaking of "white wash"

Your selective editing (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024455380#post2) and the full quote:

But there are still roadblocks that may prevent the president from nominating progressive candidates. The GOP can still use something called the "blue-slip process" as a de facto filibuster on nominations. Here's how: When the president is considering a potential judicial nomination, the senators from the state where the judge would serve are given a blue slip of paper. If both senators do not return their blue slips, the nominee is not allowed to move on to a vote in the Senate judiciary committee.

It is because of the blue-slip process, for example, that Obama recently nominated two candidates to serve on the federal bench in Georgia who raised the hackles of liberals: Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Michael Boggs and Atlanta attorney Mark Howard Cohen. Boggs voted to keep the Confederate battle emblem as a prominent part of Georgia's state flag when he was a Georgia legislator in the early 2000s. Cohen helped defend Georgia's voter ID law, which voting rights advocates say makes it harder for poor people and minorities to vote.

[merrily]

110. The excuses and rationalizations never end.

Did you post like that when George Bush was President, too? Or did you excoriate him?


I wouldn't blame you. I sure excoriated him without making endless excuses, lame or not.

[ReRe]

13. That's right...

...There's a disconnect somewhere. It's like someone else made those appointments FOR Obama.
How could he, in his right mind, nominate those two?

[Cha]

24. "whitewash".. really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4454784

[MisterP]

105. or Krugman's increasingly North Korean stuff...

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. I wonder what EW thinks of the Sizemore, Hurley, Clinton stuff you posted yesterday?

[Armstead]

44. Doesn't matter.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. Warren is awesome!

[BlueJac]

65. For sure!

[Phlem]

5. Hell Yes!

She Will Be My Wife!!!

-p

[Armstead]

45. Un no she won't.....But it would be good if she had a chance to be your...

...President

[Phlem]

54. You know it!

That would so wonderful!!!

I'll take that instead Alex for 1000





-p

PS. plus my wife might take issue with that.

[Sunlei]

6. Elizabeth Warren is on the mark. President O, should ask her for some suggestions.

Corp. interests will take as much advantage as they can get away with to get 'their people' in office.

[ananda]

7. I'm afraid that request will fall on deaf ears.

But I wish people would listen to her.

[ProSense]

8. Senator Warren Urges Greater Professional Diversity on Federal Bench

Senator Warren Urges Greater Professional Diversity on Federal Bench

Cites New Report on Corporate Lawyer Dominance of Federal Judiciary, Calls for More Nominees With Broad Legal Experience

Washington, DC - United States Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered remarks today on "Broadening the Bench: Judicial Nominations and Professional Diversity" at an event hosted by the Alliance for Justice (AFJ). The senator advocated for greater professional diversity of the federal bench and discussed the importance of preventing a corporate capture of the federal courts.

Senator Warren noted a report from the AFJ that shows 71% of President Obama's judicial nominees have represented primarily corporate or business clients - statistics that are broadly in line with the current composition of the federal bench. "There are some really talented judges who came from the private sector..." said Senator Warren. "But I believe that diversity of experience matters. It matters that someone has represented people other than corporate clients, that they've had real experience with people who can't afford lawyers, that they've had real experience trying to fight for the public interest."

The senator explained that for years, "the judicial nominations process was largely held hostage to an intransigent Republican minority that looked for any excuse to block President Obama's efforts to nominate federal judges," and discussed the opportunity that the Senate's rules change provides the President and Senate to ensure that the next generation of judges will represent "the best and the brightest from every corner of the legal profession."

The senator also discussed the nomination of now District Court Judge Edward Chen. "President Obama stood behind the Chen nomination," said Senator Warren. "He had to re-nominate him three times over three years before the Senate finally confirmed him. When he was sworn in, Judge Chen said that despite the obstruction that he faced during this time, he never even considered withdrawing from consideration... because, ‘the federal bench is not just for people from large corporate law firms, or who represent only the wealthy, or who never speak out, or play it safe in their careers.'"

A video of the entire event is available here.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=351

Didn't see the OP when I posted this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024454784

Elizabeth Warren: We Need to Stop Packing the Courts With Corporate Judges

—By Erika Eichelberger

On Thursday morning, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called on President Barack Obama to nominate more judges to the federal bench who have backgrounds serving the public interest instead of corporate America.

Of Obama's judicial nominations so far, just ten—fewer than four percent—have worked as lawyers at public interest organizations, according to a report released Thursday by the Alliance for Justice, a network of civil rights organizations. Only 10 nominees have had experience representing workers in labor disputes. Eighty-five percent have been either corporate attorneys or prosecutors. At an event Thursday sponsored by several civil rights organizations, including the Brennan Center for Justice and the Alliance for Justice, Warren called for more balance in the system.

"Power is becoming more and more concentrated on one side," she said. "Well-financed corporate interests line up to fight for their own privileges and resist any change that would limit corporate excess… We have an opportunity to…fight for something that balances the playing field in the other direction."

Warren noted that now is the perfect time to take up that fight. Obstruction by Senate Republicans has stalled the confirmation of many of the president's judicial nominees over the years. More federal judgeships remained vacant during Obama's first term than during President George W. Bush's, and there are still more than 50 vacancies on the federal bench that need to be filled. "So it's unsurprising that the president and a majority of the Senate gravitated to nominating corporate lawyers…that most conservative senators could not object to," Warren said. In November, however, the Senate voted to put an end to GOP obstruction by ending the filibuster for judicial nominations. Now it only takes a simple majority of the Senate to confirm nominees to the federal bench. Theoretically, that means that Obama can nominate progressive candidates with experience representing the average American, and Democrats will be able to confirm those nominees without any Republican votes.

- more -

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/02/elizabeth-warren-judicial-nominations-brennan-center

Video of Senator Warren's speech: http://www.brennancenter.org/broadening-the-bench

The AFJ report is packed full of statistics.

BROADENING THE BENCH: Professional Diversity and Judicial Nominations

<...>

So far in 2014, the outlook on nominations is bright. With his first judicial nominations of the year, President Obama has already taken a positive step toward increasing professional diversity. On January 16, the President nominated four lawyers to fill district court vacancies in Illinois, Washington, Missouri, and Nevada. All four have professional backgrounds that are currently underrepresented among federal judges: two have substantial plaintiff-side trial experience, one is a former public defender, and one is a state court judge who was previously a solo practitioner focused on criminal defense.9 With just under three years left in President Obama’s Administration, there will be ample opportunity to turn these promising nominations into the norm, rather than the exception.

II. Current Statistics: Professional Diversity and President Obama’s Judicial Nominees

This section sets forth comprehensive professional diversity statistics for President Obama’s judicial nominations, divided into five parts: (A) civil public interest and public service advocacy; (B) criminal law; (C) private practice; (D) state and federal judges; and (E) overall professional diversity statistics.

- more -

http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Professional-Diversity-Report-020514.pdf

AFJ Report: Senate rules reform opens the door to more professional diversity among federal judges
http://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/afj-report-senate-rules-reform-opens-the-door-to-more-professional-diversity-among-federal-judges

[heaven05]

9. she really does speak the truth to power

GO DR. WARREN!

[Scuba]

11. But she is NOT running for you-know-what, and has in fact already endorsed you-know-who.

On the other hand, she's said nothing that discourages me from wanting her to be our President.

[Rider3]

22. I think we need her where she is.

I think that she can help us more in the position she's currently in. However, I'd love to see her run for President some day.

[Scuba]

23. Sure, Senator from Mass has far more influence than the Oval Office. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[sadoldgirl]

25. I still don't give up hope

that she may change her mind. The President did not run that early, if I remember correctly.
Different question: I am a computer idiot, can you tell me how to put that sticker for her into my blurbs? Thank you

[dreamnightwind]

66. Instructions here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1265876

[blue14u]

71. Seriously...

I have by far, not been convinced by all the posts discouraging me

and others not to want her for POTUS!!!
Not convinced at all!
If she was POTUS, we would not be hearing
about her ideals, we would have the appointments and
everything else she wants. Our country could get back on track.
I am curious Scuba and I'm with you on this...
What is the agenda of these nay sayers?

[Scuba]

73. Third Way Dems want the corporatist candidate, and they're vocal about it.

Those who hold dear more traditional Democratic values are enchanted with Ms. Warren, at least those who know of her. She's smart, courageous, and has her heart in the right place.

Her ability to clearly state her position is exemplary. But it's her ability to calmy express her moral outrage that seperates her from the pack.

[blue14u]

75. I couldn't agree more Scuba.

Now we need to convince the rest of America and the Dems in charge.... I post about

her almost daily on my FB. and I bookmark every post on

DU.
Whoever said up thread that she was going to be their wife

needs to step aside. I am already in line! Lol

Warren 2016!

[sheshe2]

95. "Enchanted" interesting.

Sounds like a love affair. Yikes you may be in line to get bashed as those that support Obama have been.

As for Warren, we in Mass that voted for her were not enchanted. We were energized and motivated to elect her our Senior Senator from Mass. She is going to rock this old white male Senate! She is going to make history there. Mark my words!

[zeemike]

27. I don't.

She is a senator with one vote and no power to change things...progressives need leadership at the top...and if we have Hillary as our nominee we will see an other GOP president in 17...I predict.

[Divernan]

64. In 2016, Warren will be 67; Clinton will be 69; O'Malley will be 53.

If Clinton ran and was elected, Warren would be 75 when Clinton finished a 2nd term. Obviously, you can't see both of them in the oval office. I expect, based on her political history and sponsors that Clinton would be even more corporate friendly than Obama.

I like O'Malley very much. He's better qualified than either Clinton or Warren, but lesser known. I'd like to see a Warren-O'Malley ticket. 8 years of Warren, followed by 8 years of O'Malley. My Mom lived in Baltimore while O'Malley was Mayor, and I've followed his political career closely. He has experience in local/city, state and federal govt. Started out as a legislative fellow for Senator Barbara Mikulski; then right onto Baltimore City Council, thence to Mayor of Baltimore and thence to Governor of Maryland.

http://www.governor.maryland.gov/biography.html

Prior to serving as Governor, O’Malley served as Mayor of the City of Baltimore, where he was recognized by Esquire magazine as “the best young mayor in the country” and by Time magazine as one of America’s “Top 5 Big City Mayors.” First elected in 1999, he was re-elected in
2003, receiving 87 percent of the vote. Between 1999 and 2009 his policies helped the people of Baltimore achieve the greatest crime reduction of America’s largest cities.

Governor O’Malley served two terms as Chair of the Democratic Governors Association. He currently serves as the organization’s Finance Chair. In addition, he serves as Co-Chair for the National Governors Association Special Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety. He was appointed to the nation’s first-ever Council of Governors by President Obama in 2010 and was named co-chair of the council in 2013.

A former Governing Magazine “Public Official of the Year,” Governor O’Malley was re-elected in 2010. His 2013 legislative successes were described in a Baltimore Sun editorial as “without many parallels in recent Maryland history.”

With a balanced approach of spending cuts, regulatory reform, and modern investment in education, innovation, and infrastructure, Governor O’Malley's results include:

The fastest rate of job growth in the region.
The #1 ranking for best public schools in America for an unprecedented five years in a row. (Education Week)
The #1 ranking for holding down the cost of college tuition. (College Board)
The #1 ranking for innovation and entrepreneurship for two years running. (U.S. Chamber of Commerce)

Maryland ranks #1 nationally in median income,
#1 in PHD scientists and researchers per capita,
#1 in Research and Development,
#1 in businesses owned by women.
The Milken Institute ranks Maryland as one of the top 2 states in America for science and technology.

Maryland is one of only a handful of states to earn an AAA Bond Rating, certified by all three major rating agencies.

Called “arguably the best manager in government” by Washington Monthly magazine,

Governor O’Malley has cut more state spending than any previous Governor in Maryland’s history, balancing these record cuts with targeted, modern investments in priorities like public education. He has reduced the size of government to its smallest size since 1973 (on a per capita basis) and reformed the way it is managed, to make it work more efficiently and accountably. His actions to save Maryland’s state pension system have made it sustainable over the long term. His fiscal stewardship has nearly eliminated Maryland’s structural deficit. His efforts to streamline, consolidate and digitize things like business licensing are making Maryland a better place to do business.

Governor O’Malley’s StateStat initiative – modeled after the CitiStat initiative he created in the City of Baltimore – is widely cited as a model for government efficiency and effectiveness.

The O’Malley-Brown Administration has expanded health care to more than 380,000 previously uninsured Marylanders. It has driven down infant mortality to an historic low and provided meals to thousands of hungry children as it moves forward toward its goal for eradicating childhood hunger.

The Governor’s policies have been credited with restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay and saving the Bay’s native Blue Crab and Oyster populations.

The O’Malley Administration has secured millions of dollars in rate relief for Maryland energy consumers while jumpstarting the creation of thousands of green energy sector jobs. Under Governor O’Malley’s leadership, Maryland led the charge for RGGI, the nation’s first cap-and-trade auction of greenhouse emissions.

Governor O’Malley has cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders and reformed Maryland’s tax code to make it more progressive. In addition, he has signed the nation’s first statewide living wage law, along with some of the nation’s most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure.

Governor O’Malley has signed legislation to protect individual civil marriage rights and religious freedom, along with legislation to protect voting rights. He signed – and successfully defended at the ballot box – the DREAM Act, which expands the opportunity of a college education to more Marylanders.

[dreamnightwind]

68. Thanks for that info

I know nothing about him, so that was useful. We should be putting a lot more energy into coming up with alternative candidates.

I don't like the emphasis on spending reduction ad shrinking the government. If that's what O'Malley is about he might not be for me. But I don't know the state's situation. Our Gov here in CA (Brown) is decent and has also reduced spending and is a good manager, maybe it is OK, they are governors after all.

I'll pay attention to O'Malley more and hopefully learn more about where he stands. Anyway good post.

[Divernan]

69. A spending reduction on the MIC would be great, though.

[dreamnightwind]

72. You can say that again, prisons and police too - eom

[Aerows]

138. Warren-O'Malley

would be a dream ticket to vote for.

[blue14u]

70. I think if she was

POTUS she would be making the appointments!
I'm seeing this "she is better where she is" and
"she couldn't ever win" or" she isn't ready" stuff
Over and over!
Sorry....I'm not convinced in the least!

[JDPriestly]

36. She has not said she will run. But I believe she could be drafted.

That used to happen, you know, back when the Democratic Party was responsive to voters. That's back when Democrats got elected over and over and over because the whole country knew that Democrats would nominate the best candidates who would stand up for all the people and not just for corporations and fools.

Hillary is viewed as a done deal within the party hierarchy. These are the people who attend meetings and know how much money it takes to run a presidential campaign. Those are the people we need to reach on behalf of the nomination of Elizabeth Warren whether she wants it or not.

Hillary will be a liability to our Democratic Party. She just oozes potential scandals. What in the world are bankers paying her $400,000 in one week for? To flatter and cozy up to them?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/14/1255675/-Goldman-Sachs-Pays-Hillary-400-000-in-One-Week

Remember how Romney's "private" speech to a dinner party for high-rolling donors was recorded and insulted so many Americans? That was the last nail in the coffin of his presidential run.

Hillary Clinton needs to stop and think about how it will affect her election chances if some of her chit-chat with bankers gets recorded and played back in edited form for voters, especially very liberal and working voters, maybe including voters whose homes, not so long ago, were foreclosed by the very bankers with whom she is hobnobbing for dollars.

Hillary may have lots of money but arriveat the gate in November 2016 with too much baggage to get elected.

On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren's message is clear. She supports the American people, those of us who are ignored and forgotten on Wall Street. She wants more balance in the judiciary. I am with her on just about everything I have heard her say. She's just got common sense. I'm sure she is not perfect, but she hasn't been in D.C. and milling about in diplomatic circles so long that she can no longer speak the straight-forward, plain English that we understand on Main Street. Elizabeth Warren spots the issues that we all see so plainly in our humble lives. She speaks with a clarion voice to those issues and to us.

I repeat: Elizabeth Warren for president in 2016.

[SomethingFishy]

41. The best President would be one dragged kicking and screaming into the job..

So I'm with you draft Warren...

[Scuba]

60. I don't think Hillary can win, and I think we lose if she does win. I like Elizabeth a lot ....

... for both her policies and her courage. I also think she's got what it takes to inspire Poeple in a way that will carry her to a win. In this regasrd, she reminds me of an outspoken Democrat from Mass circa 1960.

[cascadiance]

85. Even if Clinton wins against the GOP we lose when more legislation like the TPP passes...

Warren woud never allow stuff like the TPP to be passed, let alone push it like Obama has been (and Hillary likely would). And Warren is the best choice as an alternative to the identity politics that get played when Hillary runs more as a "woman" than as a candidate with progressive ideas. Warren can do both, and can't have the former card played against her like other candidates can.

[Scuba]

120. Hillary is NOT a progressive, that's for sure.

[treestar]

122. If she were President, she would still have the same problems Obama has

The Senators who are involved, and the Congress in office.

[Scuba]

124. Yes, but she's shown a willingness to use some tools he has not.

Like appealing to the American People. Like naming non-corporatists to the courts and regulatory agencies. Stuff like that.

[treestar]

126. Baloney

There's no proof that would work. And her noncoporatists might not be confirmed either, and conservative States' senators would give her the same "corporatist" list of nominees.

Appealing to the American people is not the same thing as appealing to you individually. Obama has a lot better chance of appealing to the people. He just has to avoid the angry black man stereotype. The media would go after a female President the same way and the only one who would succeed would, like Obama, have to avoid the angry shrill woman stereotype.

Most Americans don't care and don't know who is appointed to the bench and regulatory agencies. Her problems would be the same and your Disappointment would be palpable. It's too easy to be a senator on the sidelines and poke at this stuff.

[Scuba]

128. Why hasn't the President tried appealing to the People? Why are his appointments mostly Repukes?

[G_j]

12. thank you

yes, the process of concentrating corporate power has been a concern!!

[mrsadm]

15. Cannot recommend this enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[indepat]

19. Senator Warren seems not to have come to grips with the fact that those who will best represent

corporatist interests will be nominated to positions of power in a corporatist government.

[Rider3]

20. Seems like...

you can count one one hand those members in Congress who actually want to help the citizens of this country. I love Ms. Warren!

[LeftOfWest]

26. Listen to her President Obama.

I was not aware of the Alliance for Justice.

Thank you for this article.

[Octafish]

28. Wish more people would notice.

She's a Democrat who believes in putting into practice what being a Democrat preaches.

[Skittles]

29. PREACH IT, SISTER

yes INDEED - about time someone called him out on his corporate bullshit

[PeteSelman]

30. That's what he's there for.

People hate to hear it but this is what the President is. He's no liberal, he's no labor guy. It's just the way it is. Because the other guys are worse doesn't make his positions good.

[JoePhilly]

32. She'll definitely beat him in the 2016 primaries.

[Fumesucker]

33. A remarkably difficult woman n/t

[Tx4obama]

35. This is the second time Warren has tried to put the blame on Pres Obama instead of the Senators...

... the Senators that give Obama the lists of names from which he picks the nominees from.

She needs to sit back and study the situation a bit more in depth before speaking publicly about the issue.

[ProSense]

37. No,

"This is the second time Warren has tried to put the blame on Pres Obama instead of the Senators..."

...despite the pitchforks aimed at Obama, Senator Warren's comments squarely put the blame on Republican obstruction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024455380#post8

[Tx4obama]

40. Here is what I'm talking about..

Elizabeth Warren To Obama: Stop Nominating So Many Corporatists
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/warren-corporate-judges

Not once have a ever seen a 'headline' where Warren has called out the U.S. Senators regarding the names they submit to Pres Obama,
her first complaint is always against Obama.

And in the past Warren has NOT put the MAIN BLAME for THE SENATES slow confirmation rate.
June 2013: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251311829

[neverforget]

43. Since the Senators give the President names, does that mean he has to accept them?

Can't he find others or are his hands tied by the Senators?

[Tx4obama]

47. Bush ignored the list once and all hell broke out. He withdrew the district judge nomination, and...

... picked a new nominee from the Senators' submitted list. He never tried that again.

So, yeah Obama's hands are pretty much tied regarding the district court judges - since it is the two U.S. Senators from the 'state' that submits those names.

Circuit Court judge list names are submitted by Senators of more than one state, so those lists are more diverse.

And he can do whatever he wants regarding Supreme Court Justices - because he has control of the short list for those.

[ProSense]

51. You know,

"Not once have a ever seen a 'headline' where Warren has called out the U.S. Senators regarding the names they submit to Pres Obama, her first complaint is always against Obama."

...I think everyone is missing the point. Her comments were to call attention to the statistical trend, highlight the impact of Republican obstruction up to this point, and show how going forward the President has an opportunity to nominate a more professionally diverse set of people to the bench.

No one seems to care about that.

[Tx4obama]

52. Even though the confirmation 'cloture' rules have changed all the other rules have not...

... so in my opinion she is not looking at the whole picture.

She should have came out and requested the U.S. Senators 'submit' more professionally diverse names to the president.
That is where the problem is. She keeps focusing on Obama and the end of the 'confirmation' process, but not on the 'whole process'.
The submitted list of names (from the U.S. Senators) and the issue of blue slips is where the focus needs to be.

[Tx4obama]

84. An important excerpt...

-snip-

AFJ president Nan Aron, who also spoke at the event, gave the White House credit for recently stepping up its efforts to increase the professional diversity of its nominees. In mid-January, the president announced four district court nominees that Aron said all had backgrounds that are under-represented in the judiciary.

"With now more than 50 vacancies without a nominee, and with more vacancies surely to emerge, there will be ample opportunity to turn these promising nominations into the norm rather than the exception," Aron said.

A White House aide said the president has always been committed to a diverse federal bench.

Obama evaluates candidates "based on their entire legal careers and professional backgrounds -- which can include time spent in private practice just like it can include time spent in various other forms of legal work," said the aide, who commented on condition of anonymity. "A candidate's current day job is not the only consideration of 'professional diversity,' and labeling someone 'corporate' cheapens the broad work of one’s legal career."

The aide pointed to the diversity of nominees Obama has put forward in the past couple of months, in addition to the four that received praise from Aron. On Wednesday, the president announced four Florida nominees, two of whom have plaintiff-side litigation experience and two others who have military legal experience. In December, the president nominated eight district court nominees, two of whom were former public defenders, one of whom is a plaintiff-side lawyer and one of whom ran a small practice before becoming a judge.

-snip-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/elizabeth-warren-obama-judicial-nominees_n_4738029.html

[Tx4obama]

86. Regarding other diversity, check out the new graphic on the link below

Here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/judicial-nominations

Pretty awesome

[Jesus Malverde]

38. Come-on Tx we got room on board...chooo chooo.

[JDPriestly]

42. Obama is cool. That is one of his best qualities.

It was wonderful to have a cool, confident president after Bush who nearly destroyed the country with his overly emotional and unthinking reactions to everything that happened in the world.

Both Obama and Warren are sane (Hillary is sane, but rather vindictive I suspect). They are both really exceptionally good people. But Warren has a little more passion for doing what is right than does Obama. Obama has some, but he tones it down. I suspect that he may pride himself on being more reasonable, more rational, more willing to compromise than others. That was great when he first took office. But now the country needs more passion in its leadership. This is the time when we will decide whether we adventure forth toward progress or whether we fall back into a fearful, regressive, ultra-conservative past of spite and repression.

Hillary Clinton did not, in 2008, demonstrate the passion to do what is right that we needed. That is why we nominated Obama even though he really did not have that passion either. On the other hand, Warren is what the country needs in 2016 -- leadership that will take us into a future in which we have to decide major questions such as how we will allocate wealth in an economy in which much of the "manual labor" is done by machines.

We see the military replacing combat soldiers with drones. How will the civilian sector replace manual labor when computer-directed gadgets can do the work? How will we decide who does and does not eat if jobs, the work that decides who gets what now, is limited to rare positions repairing, running, selling and using those gadgets. What happens when we need only ten people to do the work that 30 of our grandparents did? Who will get what? How will we decide who deserves to thrive and who does not? Or will we?

These are very difficult questions, and I would like to have Elizabeth Warren lead our nation in beginning to answer them. Elizabeth Warren speaks for me. Elizabeth Warren for 2016.

[WillyT]

62. Even If She Got In For Future Runs, And To Pull The Debate To The Left...

I mean Biden's been running since what... the 1980's?

You gain experience, and start building a campaign infrastructure.

And... she would pull EVERY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, into a debate on what it means to BE a Democrat.

We need that.

[Doctor_J]

78. The Senators are nominating judges now?

He abdicated THAT duty too?

[Tx4obama]

80. U.S. Senators submit lists of names to the president...

District Court Judge nominees - lists of names are submitted to the president by the two U.S. Senators from the state with the vacant district court seat.

Circuit Court Judge nominees - lists of names submitted to the president by the U.S. Senators from the states in that Circuit which has the vacant seat.

It has been this way for a very long time.

[morningfog]

88. "Seventy-one percent of the judges he nominated primarily represented corporate interests."

Are you saying that of all the judges from all the state lists, compiled by all the senators, 29% not "primarily representing corporate interests" is the best he can do?

C'mon. He shares the blame, here.

[Tx4obama]

89. See excerpt in Comment #84

[morningfog]

90. I can't see a Comment #84.

[Tx4obama]

91. Here's a copy below...

-snip-

AFJ president Nan Aron, who also spoke at the event, gave the White House credit for recently stepping up its efforts to increase the professional diversity of its nominees. In mid-January, the president announced four district court nominees that Aron said all had backgrounds that are under-represented in the judiciary.

"With now more than 50 vacancies without a nominee, and with more vacancies surely to emerge, there will be ample opportunity to turn these promising nominations into the norm rather than the exception," Aron said.

A White House aide said the president has always been committed to a diverse federal bench.

Obama evaluates candidates "based on their entire legal careers and professional backgrounds -- which can include time spent in private practice just like it can include time spent in various other forms of legal work," said the aide, who commented on condition of anonymity. "A candidate's current day job is not the only consideration of 'professional diversity,' and labeling someone 'corporate' cheapens the broad work of one’s legal career."

The aide pointed to the diversity of nominees Obama has put forward in the past couple of months, in addition to the four that received praise from Aron. On Wednesday, the president announced four Florida nominees, two of whom have plaintiff-side litigation experience and two others who have military legal experience. In December, the president nominated eight district court nominees, two of whom were former public defenders, one of whom is a plaintiff-side lawyer and one of whom ran a small practice before becoming a judge.

-snip-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/elizabeth-warren-obama-judicial-nominees_n_4738029.html

[morningfog]

93. Very little to be excited by there.

Military legal experience as an alternative to corporate world is a lesser of two evils.

The two former public defenders and the small practice attorney look like good choices. We need more of them. A helluva lot more to balance the damage done through the vast majority of the nominations.

[Tx4obama]

94. Blame the US Senators, they're the ones that submit the list of names to the president to pick from

[morningfog]

96. Do you have a list of the names submitted?

How do we know whether the best choices from the lists ave been made? Or were nearly all the names on the list corporatists?

Also, there is no law requiring him to choose from a list. These are lifetime appointments, and should be used to make real changes to the bench.

[Tx4obama]

98. For each district court seat vacancy the two US senators from that state submit a list to ...

... the president. As far as I know those lists are not made public.

And yes he does have to pick from those lists regarding district courts - that is the way it is done.

Bush tried to nominate someone once for a 'district court vacancy' who wasn't on the Senator's list and all hell broke out - he withdrew the nomination and never tried that again.

Btw, when a republican president is in office he picks from the list that democratic senators submit if both senators from that state are dems.

It has been this way for a very long time.

[morningfog]

100. I understand that.

But the process is not sacrosanct (not constitutionally required), nor does it apply to Appellate judges.

See here: Civil rights leaders attempt to block Obama judicial nominations http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/surprising-new-set-opponents

[merrily]

114. Obviously, it's time to change the tradition.

[morningfog]

97. Do you have a link to the Appellate judge tradition?

I can't find one. The Appeals judges seem to be nominate without the list tradition used in District Courts.

[Tx4obama]

101. Regarding the Circuit Courts of Appeals

... all the U.S. Senators from states in that 'Circuit' are allowed to submit a list of names.

And regarding the Supreme Court, the President has total control over Supreme Court nominations since he is the one that decides on the short list for those vacancies.

[morningfog]

102. My understanding is the WH has more control over Appellate level than that.

Link?

[Tx4obama]

103. Probably more control at the Circuit level, but not at the district court level...

... and that is where the majority of appointments are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

[merrily]

116. In your opinion, what would happen if he said no one on the list

was acceptable and they should submit another list? I don't know, of course but I would be surprised if that has not happened in the history of the tradition.

In any event, it's time to say that, given the record-breaking behavior of the Republicans, ending the blue list tradition is also under consideration. I think the threat of doubling the nuclear option, if you will, as to nominees might just result in the names of fewer assholes on the blue list.


The Constitution says "advise and consent." It does not say that the President is bound by the advice of a minority and it sure as hell says nothing about 60 votes on nominees.

[Logical]

92. And he really called them out for doing it didn't he? Took it public? LOL n-t

[2naSalit]

39. Wooohoo!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

48. YAY!! YAY!! YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that would be a very good thing.



wish the pukes would stop blocking the good people he tries to appoint

[Autumn]

50. That woman is just full of smart ideas.

[NorthCarolina]

67. I would certainly like to see her in a position of appointing judges.

Maybe, if we're lucky, it could happen.

[blue14u]

74. Does anyone think about

how many times we will see "what difference does it make"?
From January 1st 2014 I see this daily. Everyday someone on
my FB page drudges this up! I really shouldn't have to see this
and fight it every single day should I?
(Should you?

Can we please have a candidate without so much baggage?
Am I asking for to much?
Seriously, Biden/Warren maybe? Please?

[lostincalifornia]

76. She is right, especially in his second term

[Doctor_J]

79. The president is a corporatist "Moderate Republican" in his words, and his second

term will be even more corporatist than his first. In his first term he guaranteed 600 billion dollars per year to Big Insurance. His second will include TPP, KXL, and probably corportization of the public schools.

[lostincalifornia]

111. He is no republican. You do realize he is for the the minimum wage increase. He is also pro-choice

and for equal pay for equal work, and women's rights in general, and he has worked on those issues, not just words. He has also become an strong advocate for gay rights, and though the ACA is not ideal, 40 million people who were not insured are insured now.

There is no republican today that supports those issues.

He believes in Global Warming, and that we should have reasonable gun control laws, no republican in Congress believes in that.

He has effectively gotten us out of Iraq, and is in the process of getting us out of Afghanistan. The so-called moderate republicans wanted us to stay in Iraq.

Unfortunately, he most likely will sign the TPP, however, Democrats in the Senate could stop that, but do you really think that will happen?

Yes, he has talked about vouchers, however, as more statistics evolve, it is looking like the voucher system is not working, that is, the students are NOT better educated.

If you take the sum of all his values, and the sum of all the republican values, he is no republican. He is a moderate Democrat. They concept of a moderate republican does not even exist today. Just look at what they vote on.

[bvar22]

137. The quote is,"Back in the 80s I'd be considered a Moderate Republican".

I was a staunch DEMOCRAT back in the 80s.
NOBODY could consider me a "Moderate Republican" back in the 80s,
because I disagreed with Moderate Republican Policy,
especially Moderate Republican Economic Policy.
Why should I support Moderate Republican Policy today?

I want to vote for someone who would have been considered a DEMOCRAT back in the 80s,
and that certainly is NOT Hillary.

[lostincalifornia]

139. ok, thanks for the link. I don't agree with Obama on that characterization either though. Reagan

was no moderate, and Obama I think is playing to the media for the myth that he was.

I hear your point though

[merrily]

144. Obama did not get us out of Iraq.

In 2008, Bush and the President of Iraq agreed on a withdrawal date.

As the date neared, the US tried to convince Iraq to let us stay longer, but they wanted Iraq to agree not to prosecute anyone we had there, military or civilian, for crimes. Iraq would not agree to an extension, so we left on the date Bush and the President of Iraq had set.

[Tx4obama]

147. Also, DADT and DOMA are gone. But Republicans want gays to be purged from the GOP. See below

Republican Official Says Gays Should Be Purged From GOP, Blames Homosexuality On Satan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/mary-helen-sears-michigan-gop_n_4740426.html

[merrily]

108. The term where he doesn't have to worry about re-election?

Huh.

To be fair, the nominees in his first term made me

[lostincalifornia]

112. Understood. They really should have gotten rid of the filibuster in his first term, but

unfortunately, the spineless Democrats didn't

[merrily]

113. The filibuster made him nominate Rahm, Gates, Geithner et al?

I don't understand your comment.

[lostincalifornia]

115. Good point. The question is would he have appointed more progressives if he had a simple majority

to clinch the nominations?

Probably not. My assumption was that those nominees were chosen so they could pass through the Senate without obstruction from the republicans, but on reconsideration, since he had Clinton people as his advisors, you are most likely correct nothing would have changed.

[merrily]

140. He was newly elected in a time when the people were very panicked

Global economic collapse, foreclosures everywhere, etc.

And he had been elected by impressive margins.

And, it was not a matter of filling vacancies. As of January 2009, he had NO official cabinet at all.

Republicans would have been suicidal to obstruct appointments just because.

[lostincalifornia]

141. It might have been suicidal, but that is not necessarily their perspective. In fact there was a

large group in their party calling for a lot of those things. Remember, they were still spewing strong that he wasn't an American, he was a socialist, a nazi, and calling him a liar when addressing congress.

[merrily]

142. I know, but spewing and calling for are

very different things from actually preventing him from getting a cabinet in place while the nation was in such crisis. Oh, yes, I forgot to mention war in two nations and the more fuzzy war on terror. They would not have dared.

It might have been suicidal, but that is not necessarily their perspective.

I respectfully disagree. Their re-election and the election of more Republicans is their only perspective. They were not going to commit political suicide. And they did very well with that in 2010. The only reason we are not in another funding crisis is that they saw what it did to them in 2012. Sure, sometimes they miscalculate. But they want to avoid unemployment by poll booth.

[lostincalifornia]

146. yup

[another_liberal]

83. Wow!

That needed to be said.

[Tx4obama]

87. See Comment #84

[another_liberal]

119. That is certainly a valid point.

I, for one, will seize any opportunity I'm offered to not think ill of our President. Sometimes it is hard to remember that he only has the powers he actually has.

[CallmeJoe]

99. Senator

Elizabeth is the hero american deserves, and totally the one it needs right now.

[alp227]

106. Obama oughta know, as he once worked for the NY Public Interest Research Group.

SANDERS/WARREN 2016!!!

[DLevine]

117. Sound advice. nt

[myrna minx]

118. K&R/ Thank you Senator Warren.

[treestar]

121. They are to follow the law no matter who they are

Judges are not a political appointment. Does she think that if he appoints those she wants, they will cheat the law to decide cases the way they want to rather than as the law says?

[treestar]

123. By now she must know she is being used to undermine the President

So we can take this as purposefully doing so. Which only helps Republicans. Maybe the love and worship is going to her head? It didn't go to Obama's. Funny how this kind of "i love this woman" kind of worship is allowed by the same people who condemn us as fangirls for merely supporting the President.

[ProSense]

125. Here:

Senator Warren on how Massachusetts selects judicial nominees.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024458843

[ProSense]

130. Just as I expected

crickets in that thread.

[Hun Joro]

131. K & R a thousand times...

Why is it so difficult for most of our politicians to speak an obvious truth such as this?

And so we marvel when someones does.

[Enthusiast]

132. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[raouldukelives]

133. If people don't want corporate rule, perhaps they should stop helping them achieve it.

If one wants to point a finger of blame, they should first check their own financial statements to assure what side they are on.

[ProSense]

134. AFJ: Tell your Senators: Please vote for all 29 pending judicial nominees NOW

AFJ: Tell your Senators: Please vote for all 29 pending judicial nominees NOW
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024459117

[Paper Roses]

135. I would like to shake Ms. Warren's hand. I hope she keeps it up. N/T

[warrant46]

143. +1