Posted by Kromey at 12:52pm Nov 25 '13that over 200 Obama-appointees have been confirmed to the federal circuit courts alone?
Or is it just more convenient to rely on your party line that the GOP is just "obstructionist" than it is to consider the fact that just because the Democrats have the majority voice in one chamber doesn't mean that the GOP has to sit down and shut up?
Were you fine with the "nuclear option" when the GOP wanted to invoke it in 2005? Will you be fine with the GOP using it in the future?
This is a rules change, and it's not about your partisanship anymore. This fundamentally alters the basic process in the Senate, and completely silences the minority opinion; right now that the GOP, but it won't be long before the Democrats are in that same position. Do you want them to be told to sit down, shut up, and let the GOP do whatever the fuck it wants?
Of course not.
This is bigger, more significant, than simply which party you happen to support.
given the parenthetical above, i'd suppose that "obstructionist" applies more to the GOP than the Dems.
The parenthetical -- which addressed SCOTUS appointees -- is empty hyperbole. Seriously, try some basic fact-checking before you open your mouth next time: Bush nominated 3 SCOTUS appointees, only 2 of which passed (the third withdrew herself because of Democratic opposition -- or, to use your vernacular, obstructionism); Obama has nominated 2 (i.e. same number of openings), and both were confirmed.
In other words, Bush's success rate with SCOTUS justices was only 67%, while Obama's is 100%, and both have had the same number of opportunities.
So given your parenthetical, "obstructionist" actually applies more to the Dems!
Are you aware - Kromey