Skip to main content

View Diary: With Reid saying he's a no vote, Michael Boggs's federal court nomination appears to be in trouble (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who said "Withdraw?" Give him an up or down vote! (4+ / 0-)

    The Republicans can't accuse Obama of breaking the deal if the Senate Democrats vote against the nominee. Heck, the Republicans are probably going to vote against all the good nominees.

    They'll just lose, and it doesn't appear that actual outcomes of the up or down vote were part of the deal.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 12:22:48 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Given this senate and some of the Democrats (5+ / 0-)

      who inhabit it, that's a pretty risky gamble...

      What if he's not voted down?

      Baby, where I come from...

      by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 12:26:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then we're back to an ordinary deal... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        R30A

        and not the Best. Deal. Ever!

        If he's confirmed, and a bunch of good nominees are confirmed as a result, then that's a pretty ordinary bit of deal-making.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 12:29:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And if some GOP president down the line... (0+ / 0-)

          nominates him for the SCOTUS trumpeting his "bipartisan" confirmation?

          Baby, where I come from...

          by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:06:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why do you live your life in fear of what the GOP (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AlexDrew, R30A

            might say in some indeterminate future?

            This isn't 2002. The GOP says all kinds of things; that doesn't mean people believe it anymore.

            If the Republicans say stuff, we say stuff back. In case you haven't been noticing, we've been winning most of those face-offs for some time now.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:09:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ummm... re-read my post... (3+ / 0-)

              it's not about what some Republican might "say", it's about who some Republican might nominate for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land... how exactly would future Democrats oppose this nomination, given his nomination to a lower court by a Democratic nomination and confirmation by a Democratic-controlled Senate?

              In case you haven't been "noticing", we've been losing those face-offs in the SCOTUS... Citizens United anyone?

              Baby, where I come from...

              by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:16:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "... trumpeting his "bipartisan" confirmation." (0+ / 0-)

                Sorry, I read you just fine the first time. You seem to have forgotten what you've written.

                You're living your life in fear of what a Republican might "trumpet."

                I'm just not as afraid of the Republicans' trumpet as you are.

                how exactly would future Democrats oppose this nomination, given his nomination to a lower court by a Democratic nomination and confirmation by a Democratic-controlled Senate?
                Exactly the same way they have in the past. It wouldn't be remotely unusual to oppose a Supreme Court nomination for someone you had previously supported for a lower-court nomination. How, exactly? Um...by voting no when the nomination hits the floor.

                And what the outcome of Supreme Court cases is supposed to have to do with your original point - the alleged difficulty in opposing a nomination - is not entirely clear.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:22:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My point was the nomination, not the trumpeting... (4+ / 0-)

                  but please tell me, exactly what would the basis be for Democrats to oppose the nomination to the SCOTUS of a judge appointed by a Democrat and confirmed by a Democratic Senate? On what grounds? And if you don't mind, please list those they've successfully opposed under similar circumstances... be specific...

                  I get that you think this is a swell idea... I just don't see you offering up any specifics as to why...

                  Enjoy the last smirk...

                  Baby, where I come from...

                  by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:46:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's what I thought... n/t (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    i saw an old tree today

                    Baby, where I come from...

                    by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 02:46:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Any basis they want. (0+ / 0-)

                    Any grounds they want.

                    You seem to be laboring under the delusion that there are rules to this.

                    You're the one postulating a theory about...well, something, you want say what...interfering with the capacity of Senate Democrats to cast nay votes. That puts the onus on you, not me, to back up your theory that there would be some impediment.

                    First you cited a trumpet, but you seem to have abandoned that. So...what, then? What's to stop the Democrats from voting no against a nominee, regardless of their previous support for a deal?

                    Art is the handmaid of human good.

                    by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 03:11:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I never cited a trumpet... I cited a nomination.. (0+ / 0-)

                      and the likely reaction to said nomination... hence the trumpeting...

                      When you get a minute, would mind listing the nominations Democrats have successfully opposed under similar circumstances in... oh, say the last 50 years?

                      When you're done rotating your tires, I mean...

                      Baby, where I come from...

                      by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 03:31:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I did, below. (0+ / 0-)

                        Robert Bork, off the top of my head.

                        Please, ask me this TOTALLY UNANSWERABLE, ARGUMENT-WINNING QUESTION again.

                        Art is the handmaid of human good.

                        by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 03:33:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The "top of your head" must think Reagan was a (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          i saw an old tree today

                          Democrat...

                          Baby, where I come from...

                          by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 04:18:39 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  More chores? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 04:22:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bruins game, kid to bed, dinner. (0+ / 0-)

                            My God, you live a miserable life.

                            BTW, your latest debate-winner is a dud, too.

                            But keep doing your end-zone dance on the five yard line! I'm having a blast!

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 07:54:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You wrote that four minutes after asking? (0+ / 0-)

                            That's pathetic.

                            You're like a parody.

                            Is this the person you want to be?

                            It was pitiful enough when you waited a whole hour. This is just...sad.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 07:57:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You have a funny way of admitting you were wrong.. (0+ / 0-)

                            lol...

                            That's OK... you were close... you did mention a guy who'd been nominated by a president...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:06:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How would you know? I'd have to be wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            You know, flop sweat still stinks even when you put on a brave face.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:12:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  BTW, I'm going to crawl into bed with my wife. (0+ / 0-)

                            Don't stay up too late; you have a big day on the internet tomorrow.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:20:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No doubt she's thrilled… n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:29:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, it thinks he was confirmed by Democrats. (0+ / 0-)

                            You seem to have forgotten, you were trying to make a point about Democratic Senators.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 07:55:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I successfully made a point about... (0+ / 0-)

                            a Democratic president nominating a lower court judge, a Democratic Senate confirming him/her then successfully defeating that same judge's nomination for the SCOTUS... I (successfully) asked you for an example of same...

                            You unsuccessfully (albeit hilariously) offered up Robert Bork as an example... who was nominated (twice) by Ronald Reagan... a former Democrat but a Republican nonetheless... you were so close!

                            Here ya go...

                             photo TVA_Douglas_Dam_jack_hammer_zps38027542.gif

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:05:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope, go back and read what you wrote. (0+ / 0-)

                            You are moving your goal posts to add more and more criteria to what was once merely "similar." You didn't ask about who nominated, merely a "similar" situation.

                            You wouldn't need to go back and change your criteria if you had been successful.

                            Since the alleged threat is that Democrats wouldn't dare flip-flop and oppose someone they had previously supported, Robert Bork works just fine.

                            Perhaps some supposedly-cute pictures and over-the-top self-congratulations can will be enough to make you think this hasn't been a disastrous exchange for you, but to the rest of us, it just makes you look like you're trying too hard.

                            (BTW, do you EVER leave your computer? Do you have any sort of social or family life at all?)

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:10:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here, let me help you: (0+ / 0-)
                            When you get a minute, would mind listing the nominations Democrats have successfully opposed under similar circumstances in... oh, say the last 50 years?
                            If you want to keep narrowing "similar circumstances" down until you get the result you want, have at it.

                            But unless you can come up with some reason to consider the question of who nominated the judge, as opposed to how the Senate treated him before, to be the relevant question, you're just playing the "You can't make me admit it on the internet" game.

                            And, not being someone who spends his life on comment threads, I don't find that game a whole lot of fun.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:18:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right… "Similar circumstances"... (0+ / 0-)

                            Where a Democratic president nominated a Supreme Court justice, confirmed by a Democratic Senate and then nominated to the Supreme Court… Sorry, I just presumed that we didn't think a Democratic president would be the one doing the nominating for the Supreme Court for this particular individual… Given your "this is just a political ploy" scenario… That's why I said what if a GOP president nominated him… You're not very good at this are you?

                            Either way, Bork was laughably inaccurate… Nominated to the lower court by a Republican, nominated to the Supreme Court by a Republican… Other than that bull's-eye!

                            Goalpost is exactly where it was… You just unfortunately shanked it...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:26:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  First sentence should read "nominated a (0+ / 0-)

                            Lower court justice"…

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:28:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You can't even keep your own argument straight. (0+ / 0-)

                            You were trying to argue that, if a future Republican President nominated this judge for SCOTUS, the Democrats wouldn't be able to oppose him.

                            And now you're arguing that Robert Bork doesn't count as an example because he was nominated to the SCOTUS by a Republican.

                            Oopsie.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:31:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right... on what grounds would they oppose him? (0+ / 0-)

                            After nominating and confirming him...

                            "Too extreme"? Why then did they nominate and confirm him for a lifetime appointment?

                            "Out of the mainstream"? Why then did they nominate and confirm him for a lifetime appointment?

                            "Unqualified"? Why then did they nominate and confirm him for a lifetime appointment?

                            You seem really confident that a viable opposition could be mounted to oppose his elevation to the higher court... you also seem woefully inept at explaining how... "they'd just do it" is not a viable explanation...

                            Keep flailing... you're quite entertaining in a "watching Gallagher smash food items" kinda way...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:20:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Robert Bork DOESN'T qualify as an example... (0+ / 0-)

                            He was nominated to the Appeals Court by a REPUBLICAN President (Reagan) and confirmed by a REPUBLICAN Senate... the REPUBLICANS controlled the Senate in 1982, the year Bork was nominated and confirmed to the DC Appeals Court...

                            He was nominated to the SCOTUS by a REPUBLICAN President (Reagan) and his confirmation was denied by a DEMOCRATIC Senate in 1987...

                            Other than that, he's an exact fit for my criteria... lol...

                            I'm guessing you're ignorant to the fact that the GOP controlled the Senate when he was nominated... well, I'm guessing that you're ignorant to a lot, but this one is verifiable...

                            At least now I can see why you parried to Abe Fortas...

                            Thanks for the entertainment...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:30:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The ONLY way Bork would have qualified (0+ / 0-)

                            would be if say, Jimmy Carter had nominated him to the Appeals Court and a DEMOCRATIC senate had confirmed him and THEN Reagan had nominated him for the SCOTUS and a DEMOCRATIC congress had tried to oppose him... we all (well most of us) know that's not at all what happened...

                            You're not even close on this one... I suspect you realized that after you posted that mouth fart... hence "Abe Fortas"...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:33:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A dumb man once said: (0+ / 0-)
                            1. Declaration of "victory" is a sure sign of defeat....
                            Please, keep up with the self-fluffing.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:51:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've already answer this: anything they want. (0+ / 0-)

                            Any line they care to come up with.

                            Oh, and this is exactly why the Abe Fortas example is so useful.

                            Blah blah blah, flailing. Nice projection, Captain Desperate.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:51:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Any line they care to come up with"? (0+ / 0-)

                            TRANSLATION: "I have no fucking idea...

                            Thanks for admitting as such... because if you had any fucking idea, you'd have responded with it... seriously? You're not even going to attempt one possible strategy for opposing the nomination after confirming him? "They'll come up with something" is really your answer? HAHA!

                            I mean, "Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame" is about as relevant to the topic as "Abe Fortas wasn't elevated to Chief Justice AFTER being confirmed to the SCOTUS" in a thread about preventing lower court justices from being confirmed to the SCOTUS...

                            You didn't think this out very well, did you?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:15:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Want yet another example the refutes you? (0+ / 0-)

                            In addition to Robert Bork, whom the Democrats had no problem rejecting when a Republican President nominated him, despite the fact the Democrats had previously confirmed him...

                            We have Abe Fortas, whom the Democrats rejected for elevation to Chief Justice, after they had previously confirmed him as an Associate Justice.

                            So, what do we have here? Previous Democratic nomination? No problem, rejected. Previous Democratic confirmation? No problem, rejected. New Republican nomination after previous Democratic confirmation? No problem, rejected!

                            Pal, I'm good enough at this to run circles around you, go to bed, come back, and do it again.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:36:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Abe Fortas? Really? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            I'm sorry, where did I write "confirmed as Associate Justice, rejected for elevation to Chief Justice?" Riddle me this, joe... he was still on the Court for life, right?

                            Talk about moving the goalposts...

                            You actually suck at this... you know how I know? Rule #1 in arguing on the internet... pal...

                            1. Declaration of "victory" is a sure sign of defeat....

                            Sleep tight...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:15:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're looking more and more desperate. (0+ / 0-)

                            You've ceased to try to argue any point about the behavior of the Senate Democrats in rejecting nominees, and are just trying and failing to not technically be wrong on the internet.

                            1. Declaration of "victory" is a sure sign of defeat....
                            Wow. You don't even have enough self-awareness to avoid typing this after this little exchange?

                            What a sorry little thing you are.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:49:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Speaking of "lack of self-awareness"... (0+ / 0-)
                            not being someone who spends his life on comment threads,
                            Rather funny coming from "someone" with more than twice as many comments as someone who's been here 3 years longer than he has...

                            You see the contradiction here?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:09:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  And no, you cited a trumpet. (0+ / 0-)

                        And you keep doing so - you keep insisting that the Democrats will be totally checkmated by the Republicans' trumpeting.

                        No matter how much you want to run away from that terrible argument, we can all still read it.

                        Art is the handmaid of human good.

                        by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 03:34:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh, and as for examples of similar situations... (0+ / 0-)

                    they confirmed Robert Bork for Solicitor General, then turned around and rejected him for the Supreme Court.

                    I love it when people think they've asked an unswayable question and start strutting before they extremely-easy question is answered.

                    Art is the handmaid of human good.

                    by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 03:32:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Umm,it would not have (4+ / 0-)

                to be a future GOP prez that could elevate one like Boggs.

                "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

                by tardis10 on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:23:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Then there's still the risk of Republicans (0+ / 0-)

          reneging on their deal.

        •  You are completely missing the point (0+ / 0-)

          The Democrats control the White House and the Senate. They don't have to make a "deal" at all. The Democrats can nominate, and confirm, whoever they want.

          They are nominating conservatives because they want conservatives. Period.

          •  Have you been asleep for five years? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            freakofsociety, R30A
            They don't have to make a "deal" at all. The Democrats can nominate, and confirm, whoever they want.
            You don't seem to have paid much attention to how the Senate works.
            They are nominating conservatives because they want conservatives. Period.
            What a silly statement. The veto points in the Senate are playing no role in the President's nomination efforts? None?

            Seriously?

            Try to be Better-Informed White Democrat, because that's just silly.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 03:19:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I know exactly how the Senate works (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cybrestrike
              You don't seem to have paid much attention to how the Senate works.
              I know exactly how the Senate works. The rules can be changed at any time with a simple majority vote. If the Republicans are abusing the rules to block good nominees, the Democrats could simply change the rules to prevent that.

              The fact that they refuse to do so, and instead make shitty "deals" like this one, can only mean that they want a convenient excuse to put right-wingers on the bench.

              •  So, no, you don't know how the Senate works. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                freakofsociety, R30A

                What you just described is forbidden by the Senate rules, which allow changes to the rules by majority vote only at the beginning of a Senate term.

                But even if you hadn't just mangled the rules of the Senate, your conclusion still wouldn't follow. IF every single Democratic Senator doesn't choose to change the rules to reduce their own individual power, the only possible reason could be that they want to put right-wing judges in the judiciary?

                Huh?

                What about "wanting to maintain their individual power?" What about "believing the rules are a good idea?" What about "maintaining the power of the minority because they expect to be in it someday?"

                Note that you don't even have to agree that these are good reasons to acknowledge that there could be Senators who think this way.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 07:52:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The procedure that Republicans (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Meteor Blades, cybrestrike

                  are abusing is not a senate rule. It is a procedure called "blue slip" that Sen. Leahy, as chair of the SJC,  could stop using. It a courtesy, not a rule. The blame for this is not entirely on Republicans. Democrats, Sen. Leahy specifically, have the power to stop the obstruction.

                  1. “Blue Slips”

                  The immediate impact of Thursday’s rule change is that nearly every nomination that reaches the Senate floor can be confirmed by a simple majority vote (the rules change exempts Supreme Court nominees, although that exemption is unlikely to last). The problem for many nominees or potential nominees, however, is that the rules allow just one Senator to prevent them from reaching the floor in the first place. Thanks to a relic of an old patronage system that was dismantled in the Carter and Reagan Administrations, senators can effectively block judicial nominees from their own state. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that courts of appeals judges, who typically preside over cases from multiple states, are considered to be tied to a particular state. Thus, the senators from Texas can block anyone nominated to two Texas vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

                  In other words, President Obama cannot fill these seats, unless he gets permission from Ted Cruz.

                  As Senate Judiciary Chair, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has the power to abolish this practice — known as the “blue slip” rule. Indeed, in 2003, then-Judiciary Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT) abandoned the blue slip rule in favor of a looser standard that allowed judicial nominations to move forward “provided that the Administration [] engaged in pre-nomination consultation with both of the home-state Senators.”

                  It's not just Republicans, the president's own party has put him in this bind.
                  •  This is much better point than above. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SamanthaCarter

                    Yes, Leahy's anachronistic yearning for the gentlemanly days of the Senate of yore, and his apparent belief that he can bring them back if he leads by example, is quite frustrating.

                    Art is the handmaid of human good.

                    by joe from Lowell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:21:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The point is (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joe from Lowell

                      the Democrats on his committee and Reid, as Senate leader, need to pressure Leahy to end the courtesy to Republicans. They certainly don't deserve it and it would alleviate the president from making such distasteful deals.

                      •  The thing is, they don't have all that much hand. (0+ / 0-)

                        Senate Chairs have a great deal of independent power; it's not like the House, where the Chairs basically work for the Speaker. They're more like state governors than federal department heads.

                        And Leahy, who is the sort of man who would use the term "the world's greatest deliberative body" unironically, really seems to consider the maintenance of these traditions to be a priority.

                        Sure, they should go ahead and pressure him some more. We'll see what good it does.

                        Art is the handmaid of human good.

                        by joe from Lowell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:04:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)
                  What you just described is forbidden by the Senate rules, which allow changes to the rules by majority vote only at the beginning of a Senate term.
                  Wrong. The Democrats just changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster for nominees, and it was not at the beginning of a Senate term. I suggest you pay closer attention to what is going on.

                  Senate rules can be changed at any time. The only reason the Democrats haven't done so in this case is because they don't want to, not because they can't.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site