Latest Breaking News

mnhtnbb

(31,402 posts) Wed Mar 2, 2016, 05:29 PM Mar 2016

White House vetting federal judge for Supreme Court nomination, report says

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The White House is vetting Jane Kelly, a federal appellate judge who spent her career as a public defender in Iowa, as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court, the New York Times reported Wednesday. Kelley, 51, was confirmed unanimously by the Senate to her current three years ago. Her nomination could tempt Sen. Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to break with his party and hold hearings to consider her nomination. Senate Republicans have called on President Barack Obama to let the next president fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court caused by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/white-house-vetting-federal-judge-for-supreme-court-nomination-report-says-2016-03-02?link=MW_latest_news

I really hope Obama puts forward someone who has been previously UNANIMOUSLY approved by the Senate for a judgeship.

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

White House vetting federal judge for Supreme Court nomination, report says (Original Post) mnhtnbb Mar 2016 OP

Lookie lookie . . . fleur-de-lisa Mar 2016 #1

Unanimously approved AND from Iowa -- that could make it hard for Grassley to deny a hearing. karynnj Mar 2016 #2

That is what I wanted him to do also. mikeysnot Mar 2016 #8

Apparently, Obama also met with Grassley yesterday mnhtnbb Mar 2016 #3

I presume she is not conservative since her resume demonstrates empathy. Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #4

Grassley in the direct path of this train tomm2thumbs Mar 2016 #5

Precisely. Checkmate, Grassley. mnhtnbb Mar 2016 #7

Maybe it will get his butt out of that senate seat Bettie Mar 2016 #11

Oh great, ANOTHER Irish underpants Mar 2016 #6

Here come the leaks!!! nt longship Mar 2016 #9

if offered, I must turn it down lol nt msongs Mar 2016 #10

MMmm watching Grassley trying to weasel out of this one should be loads of entertainment. cstanleytech Mar 2016 #12

BRILLIANT! Just effing brilliant! trof Mar 2016 #13

Step Back and Think About This houston16revival Mar 2016 #14

fleur-de-lisa

(14,628 posts)

1. Lookie lookie . . .

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 05:33 PM

Mar 2016

"On April 24, 2013, the Senate unanimously confirmed Jane Kelly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit by a vote of 96-0. "

http://www.afj.org/our-work/nominees/jane-l-kelly

karynnj

(59,504 posts)

2. Unanimously approved AND from Iowa -- that could make it hard for Grassley to deny a hearing.

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 05:36 PM

Mar 2016

Interesting that if she is approved, Obama would have nominated 3 women to join Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

mikeysnot

(4,757 posts)

8. That is what I wanted him to do also.

Reply to karynnj (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 06:01 PM

Mar 2016

Balance out the genders on the court.

mnhtnbb

(31,402 posts)

3. Apparently, Obama also met with Grassley yesterday

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 05:38 PM

Mar 2016

and got the same "No, No, we won't play" we don't care who you nominate attitude from Grassley.

The Senate Republicans must really want to see some of their buddies go down in flames this November.

I wouldn't want to play chess with Obama.

During confirmation hearings for Judge Kelly, Mr. Grassley praised her “reputation for compassion and fairness.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/name-your-supreme-court-pick-president-obama.html

Kip Humphrey

(4,753 posts)

4. I presume she is not conservative since her resume demonstrates empathy.

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 05:44 PM

Mar 2016

tomm2thumbs

(13,297 posts)

5. Grassley in the direct path of this train

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 05:50 PM

Mar 2016

"Democrats have said privately that they believe selecting Judge Kelly might force Mr. Grassley to change his stance and hold hearings after all, out of a sense of obligation to a prominent jurist from his home state and concern about tarnishing his reputation in Iowa months before he faces re-election."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/white-house-vetting-jane-kelly-judge-supreme-court.html

mnhtnbb

(31,402 posts)

7. Precisely. Checkmate, Grassley.

Reply to tomm2thumbs (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 05:51 PM

Mar 2016

Bettie

(16,124 posts)

11. Maybe it will get his butt out of that senate seat

Reply to tomm2thumbs (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 06:50 PM

Mar 2016

that is what we need most. Grassley gone.

underpants

(182,877 posts)

6. Oh great, ANOTHER Irish

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 05:51 PM

Mar 2016

Great that's all we need.

I. Am. Kidding.

longship

(40,416 posts)

9. Here come the leaks!!! nt

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 06:27 PM

Mar 2016

msongs

(67,441 posts)

10. if offered, I must turn it down lol nt

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 06:43 PM

Mar 2016

cstanleytech

(26,319 posts)

12. MMmm watching Grassley trying to weasel out of this one should be loads of entertainment.

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 07:01 PM

Mar 2016

trof

(54,256 posts)

13. BRILLIANT! Just effing brilliant!

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 07:20 PM

Mar 2016

Love it.

houston16revival

(953 posts)

14. Step Back and Think About This

Reply to mnhtnbb (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2016, 07:34 PM

Mar 2016

America awaits GOP Senate action on a Supreme Court nominee

This may take a year or more!

But WAIT! What was the GOP argument in Election 2000????

HURRY UP! The World is waiting to see who is elected, don't count the
votes, just decide NOW!!! We MUST have a President elect by December 10,
it's bad for the country.

What a bunch of lying hypocrites!

Reply to this discussion