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

  •  It exactly illustrates what many of here are... (12+ / 0-)

    saying in that the Dem party is at war with itself, with its political ideology on one side and its political reality on the other.

    Its why many of us who are Dem at heart are being so 'difficult' these days ;)

    Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Wed May 14, 2014 at 12:46:31 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Rahmbo, Geithner, Clapper, Wheeler, Boggs (20+ / 0-)

      If these people exemplify what it means to be a Dem today, there's a serious problem.  If they don't, then why do so many of them get nominated/appointed?  I won't even get into GOP holdovers like Gates* and Bernanke.

      On the policy side, we see the TPP, the CFC, and a proposed end to net neutrality.  I retain my concerns that KXL will be approved after November.  It's a lot to be asked to swallow.

      *Gates is kept on as SecDef, apparently leaves of his own volition, and writes a book in which he publicly blasts the Dem President and VP under which he served.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:12:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  its all part of the Kabuki, I try to hold back... (8+ / 0-)

        being confrontational around here, but some times its very hard. Its hard to be both nice and honest at the same time around here. Some times just have to forget the niceities and throw reality in peoples faces.

        Both sides 'play' to personality types and the script is written to keep those illusions alive.

        Keeping gates feeds into 'Dems are weak' on defense, the book does as well. The 'Dems are weak' on defense feeds into them being able to support wars with plausible denial. Being able to support wars feeds into the MIC which then feed back into their campaign funds.

        So many are afraid of breaking the illusion,because they reality is so overwhelming to them. All we can do is keep pointing out the inconsistencies, hoping time and the liberal bias of reality, eventually take their toll and shatter the illusion.

        Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

        by fToRrEeEsSt on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:21:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's the good cop, bad cop scenario (0+ / 0-)

          over and over again.  Even though the US Chamber of Commerce has starting funding its allies, like Mitch McConnell, more than their Tea Party primary challengers, it still encourages the shrill screaming of hysterical nonsense by Faux News and the usual brain-damaged RW print pundits. Pro-KXL puff pieces keep showing up in my local freebie papers right here in "liberal" Silicon Valley.

          These right-wingers are supposed to scare us so much (like the bad cop) that we'll accept any sleazy deal cut by the Democrats (like the good cop's plea bargain offers).

          And, as you rightly point out, the money goes round and round, and the revolving doors keep spinning between various industries (especially banking/finance) and the agencies which are supposed to regulate them.

      •  The problem that created this nomination (8+ / 0-)

        lies at the feet of one man, he chair of the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, Democrat Vermont.

        The problem is the legislative procedure blue slip which Leahy can end as the chairman.

        In the Senate, a blue slip is an opinion written by a Senator from the state where a federal judicial nominee resides. Both senators from a nominee's state are sent a blue slip in which they may submit a favorable or unfavorable opinion of a nominee. They may also choose not to return a blue slip. The Senate Judiciary Committee takes blue slips into consideration when deciding whether or not to recommend that the Senate confirm a nominee.
        Jamelle Bouie has a good explanation:
        For the last five years, a combination of Republican obstruction and White House neglect has left the federal judiciary with a record number of vacancies. With the end of the filibuster on judicial nominees other than Supreme Court judges, however, one part of the problem was solved: Republicans had fewer avenues for hindering the process. But there were still obstacles, and at least one of them was built by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy.

        Boggs' nomination isn't just a slap in the face to Obama's liberal supporters, it's part of the president's casual approach to the courts.

        Under his tenure, the Judiciary Committee has made unusual use of the blue-slip, a Senate tradition that, in Leahy's words, allows the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman to "solicit views of home state senators when someone is nominated to be a judge in their state." For Leahy, a negative blue-slip means the nominee is verboten, even if the other senator has given her consent to the nomination. And in that way, it's become a wide backdoor for Republican obstruction.

        Whose side is Leahy on?
        •  the deal looks like it sucks, either way (5+ / 0-)
          Not that the deal was great for Obama: Four of the six nominees are GOP picks, and only one is black in a state with a large black population. But still, the White House can say it filled some long-vacant seats.

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by greenbastard on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:35:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The point is this deal never would have (6+ / 0-)

            happened if Leahy ended blue slip. The outrage should be directed at him from the president, Reid and everyone.

            •   I see your point, but the deal still seems (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tardis10, cybrestrike

              ridiculous as well

              Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

              by greenbastard on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:48:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That part lays with the president (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tardis10, YucatanMan, cybrestrike
              •  We are talking about Georgia (0+ / 0-)

                I don't understand what kind of uber progressive deal you were expecting.

                I love president Obama!!!

                by freakofsociety on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:16:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  obviously you don't (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                  by greenbastard on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:57:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Right, (0+ / 0-)

                  because there is not one liberal voter in the state of Georgia.

                  This idea that Democrats still have to be "conservative" in a "conservative area" in order to get elected--since a whole bunch of Blue Dogs were sent packing in the last cycle--no longer holds water. If a candidate wants to represent Democrats and they want Democrats to vote for them, then the mealy-mouthed con artistry needs to stop and they need to be Democrats.

                  Anything else is pandering bullshit. And voters know it.

                  "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                  by lunachickie on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:28:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What I'm curious about is... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...why this guy even bothers calling himself a Democrat.

                    There are "conservative Democrats," but "right-wing-extremist-fanatic-nutjob Democrats?"  I didn't think those still existed, yet that's what we appear to have here.  A very curious specimen indeed.  The Democratic Party covers a lot of territory (not just us people whose opinions about most things are pretty much the same as those of the majority of people in the developed world (and in many of the countries that are "still developing but doing a good job with what they have to work with," or whatever the politically correct term is for the top tier of the "developing world") — if only because a lot of people in the centre won't touch the ultra-far-right creatures that the Republicans have turned into, but this guy does not sound to me like a centrist, even in this bizarre world where, if Ronald Reagan were to showed up today, the right-wing pundits would label him too liberal.  

                    It's such an embarrassment to have so many extra-extreme right-wing fanatics exercising real power in a supposedly advanced country.

            •  And that's it (0+ / 0-)

              You have yet another crusty old Senate tradition that cannot possibly work any more when one party decides to break the process.  Yet a crusty old Senator -- Patrick Leahy (37 years in the Senate and counting) -- uses his judiciary committee chairmanship to protect the tradition in ludicrous circumstances.  States with two Republican senators therefore get nominees even out of a Democratic president who belong in the psych ward.

              •  Don't insult the mentally ill... (0+ / 0-)

       comparing them to this freak.  You're confusing crazy with stupid.  This guy is clearly the latter (as Al Franken demonstrated so elegantly).  Although that doesn't excuse his disgusting attitudes.

      •  Thing is, I don't *need* a Democratic party (7+ / 0-)

        for appointments like that.

        If the Democratic party disappeared tomorrow, that wouldn't mean that people like Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachman would run the country. Corporate Big Money Republicans, who don't like crashing the debt ceiling, and really couldn't care less who people sleep with, would re-emerge as a political force instead of working through the Democratic party structure instead. And we'd have the corporate right wing and the wingnut fanatic right wings fighting with each other. Which is more or less what we've got now, except that there's a remainder of what used to be the Democratic party hanging around who can occasionally stop bad things from happening. Not for much longer, though, with retirements from Waxman, Miller, Holt, Harkin, and Rockefeller in one cycle.

        If there is any good in life, in history, in my own past, I invoke it now. I invoke it with all the passion with which I have lived. --Elizabeth Kostova,

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed May 14, 2014 at 02:32:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site