Skip to main content

Picture of nominee Michael Boggs with overlaid text describing his anti-choice, far-right conservative views.
Opposition to President Obama's federal district court nominee Michael Boggs that began as hints from a few Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday and was bolstered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's objections Wednesday blossomed into a complete rout Thursday when the other three Senate Democratic leaders made clear they also object.

Jennifer Bendery reported at the Huffington Post that the secretary of the Senate Democratic Conference, Patty Murray of Washington; Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois; and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the vice chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus, aren't on board with the nomination.

Apparently, they believe that in the long run they should worry more about fall-out from civil rights and pro-choice groups and everything that Democrats are supposed to stand for than about pissing off the president.

Boggs, a conservative Georgia Democrat who sits on the state's court of appeals, ran into trouble immediately at the hearing Tuesday, with one Democrat after another quietly calling into question his opposition to marriage equality and abortion as well as his support for keeping the Confederate battle flag a part of the Georgia state flag when he was a state legislator in 2001-2003. The battle flag was added in 1956 specifically to indicate lawmakers' objections to federal desegregation policies.

Schumer said he has "significant doubts" about the nominee, Durbin said, "His answers really were not very good," and Murray "is not inclined to support this nomination," according to her office.

Add the doubts shown at the Judiciary Committee hearing by Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Al Franken of Minnesota and Dick Blumenthal of Connecticut. It would take solid support from Senate Republicans, an unlikely occurrence, and the votes of several conservative Democrats, for Boggs's nomination to clear the Senate.

Before you go below the fold to read more about objections to Boggs. Please sign and send the petition: Reject Michael Boggs’s nomination to the U.S. District Court in Georgia.

Boggs was nominated by President Obama as part of a deal that gets two of his circuit court picks past the state's two Republican senators. Bendery writes:

Top Democrats may be piling up the opposition to Boggs, but the White House is standing by its nominee, given that Boggs is part of an all-or-nothing package of judicial nominees to which the president agreed with Georgia's Republican senators. The White House maintains it had to compromise on Boggs to get other nominees backed by Democrats into the package. And compromise it did: Four of the seven nominees are GOP picks, and only two are black, despite the state's large black population. The tradeoff, the administration argues, is that long-empty seats can get filled.

But that deal doesn't apply to anyone else in the Senate, and some Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are signaling that they'll vote against Boggs even making it out of the committee. The Judiciary panel isn't likely to vote for at least a few weeks.

Reid will not commit to a floor vote if the committee fails to recommend Boggs for the federal bench. "We'll see," he said.

If the nomination collapses, one other Georgia Democrat will be extremely happy. That's Rep. David Scott, the moderate who represents the Atlanta suburbs and who in February made clear he objected to Obama's "disrespect" in nominating Boggs and another social conservative, Mark Cohen:

"Let us be frank here. I'm proud of this first black president. I love this first black president," said Scott, who is black. "But when you are hurt by the one you love, there's no greater pain than that."
A vote on Boggs and other nominees is not expected for weeks.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:36 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But MB, (14+ / 0-)

    Withdrawing this nomination would torpedo all the bipartisany good feeli...
    Oh wait...

  •  Hoping for a Democratic filibuster! (5+ / 0-)

    Oh wait.....

    Any group with the word "Patriot" in its name, probably isn't.

    by Senor Unoball on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:48:18 PM PDT

  •  to reiterate: (17+ / 0-)

    a democratic congress makes a democratic president better. by blocking bad moves and protecting good ones.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:56:06 PM PDT

  •  As long as the other 6 get through i think everyon (9+ / 0-)

    e is cool with voting him down or not even voting on him.

  •  "Hi, I'm Michael Boggs. Let me tell you what I (5+ / 0-)

    know about the negro..."

    Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

    by The Dead Man on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:03:38 PM PDT

  •  Yea So What (0+ / 0-)

    I'll believe them when his nomination is tossed into the garbage where it belongs.  Yet another typical Obama nomination.

  •  I'm liking the newer braver Harry Reid. (6+ / 0-)

    His leadership skills this term have been pretty excellent.

    "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying."Edward Snowden -6.62, -6.92

    by CanyonWren on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:06:19 PM PDT

    •  I do too. But I have to agree with Jon Stewart (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, CanyonWren

      about his hypocrisy in blasting the Koch Bros while defending Sheldon Adelson.

      “I know Sheldon Adelson. He’s not in this for money,” the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election.
      Read more:

      However, he may be partly right -- IIRC one reason Adelson so assiduously supported Republicans was that he was afraid of a justice department criminal investigation of his casino in Macau. A Romney (or Gingrich) justice department might have been persuaded to drop the investigation. So maybe it wasn't all about money -- maybe it was about a criminal conviction and even (!) jail time (does a conviction for bribing foreign officials carry a prison sentence?).

      While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

      by Tamar on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:24:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How does compromise mean the minority party (19+ / 0-)

    getting to pick four out of seven nominees?

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

    We didn't fight for Democratic control of the White House so that the GOP could dictate who sits on federal benches. And I am as much a pragmatist as anyone else, but if we are not drawing the line here, what is the point of even having a line? Is there anything, any Democratic Party principle that this Administration is willing to fight for?

    •  The President Should Do What He Thinks Best (3+ / 0-)

      and so should Congress.

      That's how this stuff is supposed to work.

      •  Yes..., look how well that worked '01-'09.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quill, Susan from 29, dclawyer06

        ... when Dumbya did what he thought was best....

        Dumbya did so well that Obama retained the Bushista military head honchos and kept their wars going (thus breaking his military promises to end the wars and close Gitmo), and he retained and most of the judiciary which is following Bushista guidelines and not pursuing convictions on war criminals or their cohorts.

        Yeah, that's all worked out so well for "everyone...."

        And Obama is the one who won the Nobel Peace prize for not being Dumbya, and nominations for the peace prize closed some ten days after he took the oath of office before he had "accomplished" anything.  Norway giving the Nobel to Obama before he could earn it is the one action for which I'll criticize the Norwegians since Obama has amply proved he did not deserve getting the Nobel.  High praise from me for Norway's free health care system and free K-12 & college educational system are excellent - all financed by the taxpayers of Norway (and they also have their genealogy documents online and free access on one web site, for which I'm extremely grateful).

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:24:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The fact that a Democratic president (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quill, cybersaur, Susan from 29, JVolvo

        thinks that letting Republicans pick federal judges is a good idea, is a huge problem.

        And the fact that lots of progressives are going along with and even defending that move, is an even bigger problem.

    •  You do realize that this is because of the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tony Situ, trumpeter, Susan from 29

      blue slip policies, right? Both of the GA-senators need to sign-off on the appointments for federal district appointments. I think the practice of blue slip is a bit silly, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to what "this administration is willing to fight for."

  •  The deal is dead (7+ / 0-)

    The deal was to get all seven nominees to a committee hearing, not to vote them out of committee or to get them a senate floor vote.  From the Huffington Post today:

    On Thursday, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) conceded that his agreement with the White House is done.

    "Our deal was that the committee would hear all seven of them and the committee would vote whichever way they vote," Isakson told The Huffington Post. "Beyond that, there was no deal."

    It's always darkest before it gets less dark.

    by Karma Electra on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:10:12 PM PDT

    •  THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU... (0+ / 0-)

      I've been asking/trying to find out what the exact terms of the deal were for the past couple days on here. The fact that all seven were only promised to get hearings is actually really great news for our side. This guy Boggs and possibly the other nominee who is reportedly extremely socially conservative may end up just not getting floor votes simply b/c Harry Reid won't schedule them. That would be pretty awesome. That would still leave a couple republican picks in this deal that likely end up getting votes, but our side will at least get ours through as well. I think our picks are the ones for the Appeals Court as well, so the deal is not quite as lopsided as some around here are saying.

      Don't get me wrong though, if it were up to me I would do away with the archaic "blue-slip" tradition and all seven of these nominees would be the closest judges I could find to Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Georgia.

      "Heck, make it 61 so we can tell Lieberman to go play in traffic." - Geotpf

      by Deano963 on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:25:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If somehow this nominee gets confirmed... (7+ / 0-)

    it would be damn near impossible to keep him off the SCOTUS in the future...

    Nominated by a Democratic President, confirmed by a Democratic Senate...

    All the "bipartisany" yumminess the GOP ever dreamt of... and he's WHITE!

    This has great "coming back to bite in the ass" potential...

    Of course, that presumes the president isn't serious about this nomination and is only using it as a(nother) clever ruse to get more of the judges he really wants on the courts up or down votes...

    Hello? Is this thing on?

    Baby, where I come from...

    by ThatSinger on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:11:05 PM PDT

    •  I think that's taking it a bit overboard.... (0+ / 0-)

      He would definitely not be ANY Democratic President's choice for an open seat on the SCOTUS. That is just silly. I can literally list 12 people who are at the top of the Democratic dream list for SCOTUS off the top of my head.

      He also would not be ANY Republican President's choice. The guy was a Democrat in the state legislature. An old-school, socially conservative Democrat, yes, but a Democrat. You're out of your mind if you think any Republican President would piss off (enrage would be a more appropriate word) their base like that. That and the fact that there are many other judges republicans would rather see nominated, not to mention the fact that republicans would need to be in the majority (if not supermajority) in the Senate to get one of their preferred judges through.

      The idea of him ever making it to SCOTUS even if confirmed is tinfoil hat territory IMO.

      "Heck, make it 61 so we can tell Lieberman to go play in traffic." - Geotpf

      by Deano963 on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:33:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't have thought he'd be ANY Democratic (0+ / 0-)

        President's choice for an open seat on ANY court... guess what? He was and is... I also never thought a Democratic President would piss off not only his base but his colleagues in the Senate over a nomination like this either... again, guess what?

        And if god forbid a Republican became president again, you don't see how a Democratically nominated and confirmed pro-life, anti-marriage-equality justice would be a near slam dunk choice for SCOTUS? Who would oppose him and on what grounds? He voted to put the fucking Rebel flag BACK on the fucking Georgia state flag for fuck's sake...

        Talk about "out of one's mind"...

        As for "tinfoil hat", Dick Cheney once said it best to Senator Leahey...

        Baby, where I come from...

        by ThatSinger on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:02:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jesus Christ your post is almost parody.... (0+ / 0-)

          I never thought I would meet anyone on DKos who is stupid enough to say this:

          "And if god forbid a Republican became president again, you don't see how a Democratically nominated and confirmed pro-life, anti-marriage-equality justice would be a near slam dunk choice for SCOTUS? Who would oppose him and on what grounds?"

          Gee.....I dunno genius, I guess I would figure that every single pro-choice, pro-marriage equality Senator would oppose him. My God what a stupid question.

          Last time I checked, a strong majority of US Senators supported marriage equality. Last time I checked, a majority supported abortioin rights.

          Slam dunk?

          Time to go put the tinfoil hat back on....I heard the NSA is sending out mind-control waves over the FM band.

          "Heck, make it 61 so we can tell Lieberman to go play in traffic." - Geotpf

          by Deano963 on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:28:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tell it to MeteorBlades... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i saw an old tree today


            Because federal judgeships are lifetime appointments and he's a relatively young fellow, he could be problematic for decades.- MeteorBlades

            Please be sure and include the "tinfoil hat" insult in your response...

            Even if he WASN'T ever elevated to the SCOTUS he'd still be sitting on an extremely influential court for DECADES...  now, would you be kind enough to tell me on what basis you appear to be hallucinating that he has no chance of being confirmed, given the current makeup of the Senate?

            Oh, and try the decaf...

            Baby, where I come from...

            by ThatSinger on Fri May 16, 2014 at 01:12:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You don't seem to understand the point I (0+ / 0-)

              am trying to make here, b/c you keep stating obvious facts that I understand as if they prove your unrelated contention that he would make a "slam dunk" SCOTUS pick.

              Yes, IF confirmed, he  could be a problem for decades. That is obvious. You're really putting the cart before the horse considering it looks like he's about to be voted out of the Judiciary Committee with 10 votes against and 8 in favor, and after that point Reid has not said he would even bring him up for a full vote.

              Again, you make an incredibly stupid, easily shot down statement:

              "would you be kind enough to tell me on what basis you appear to be hallucinating that he has no chance of being confirmed, given the current makeup of the Senate?"

              I can't even....this is so stupid. You do realize we have 55 votes in the Senate right now, and literally the only Dem I could possibly conceive of voting for this guy is Manchin? Now unless you possess some kind of special Rove Math that I don't understand, 55-1 = 54. As in 54 votes opposed, and that's not counting the 1 or 2 republican lady Senators who may vote against him.

              Stop the hysterical predictions of doom.

              The guy is not even likely to get a floor vote, let alone win one.

              The histrionics are completely unnecessary, although to be fair I blame the tone of this diary for settling a  bunch of people's hair on fire.

              Oh, and btw....I don't drink coffee. Or soda. Or anything with caffeine, save a cup of hot green tea in the morning.

              So you'll have to come up with another reason to make yourself feel better for not being able to understand basic math. And reason.

              "Heck, make it 61 so we can tell Lieberman to go play in traffic." - Geotpf

              by Deano963 on Fri May 16, 2014 at 10:46:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm sorry... I can't find your similar comment on (0+ / 0-)

                Meteor Blades' diary...

                Hmmmm... it's almost like you don't have the balls to direct this kind of vitriol at him...

                Get back to me when/if you do...

                Meanwhile, if you think Manchin is the only Democratic Senator who'd vote for this motherfucker in a pinch or out of "bipartisany goodness", you either haven't been paying attention or you're considerably dumber than I imagined.. and I've got quite an imagination... I'm willing to entertain the notion that it's both...

                Get back to me when you direct a similar comment at Meteor Blades... again, be sure and accuse him of hand-wringing and "Rove Math"... he seems to believe (as I do) that the possibility (however remote) of this asshole being confirmed is not worth the risk of nominating him, deal or no deal...  which is exactly the point he (and I) have been making... take it up with him...

                Oh, and btw... If you drink green tea, you're ingesting caffeine... perhaps you should cut back? Seriously...  fucking come up for air...

                Baby, where I come from...

                by ThatSinger on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:09:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So now you're trying to run away by blaming (0+ / 0-)

                  MB? Uh, got me there. I didn't systematically go through the comments and try to set straight every single person who said this guy would be a "slam dunk" for SCOTUS.....oh wait, that was just you.

                  "he seems to believe (as I do) that the possibility (however remote) of this asshole being confirmed is not worth the risk of nominating him"

                  You seem to be under the impression that I am in favor of this nomination. I am not. Nor am I in favor of the blue slips or the deal. Again, work on your reading comprehension skills.

                  And btw dumbass....

                  "Oh, and btw... If you drink green tea, you're ingesting caffeine... perhaps you should cut back? Seriously...  fucking come up for air..."

                  My previous comment:

                  "Oh, and btw....I don't drink coffee. Or soda. Or anything with caffeine, save a cup of hot green tea in the morning."

                  I understand there is caffeine in green tea, idiot. About 1/10 as much as a single cup of coffee, not nearly enough to be a good excuse for you to use as to why you can't understand basic math. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills. It would have saved you the embarrassment of this entire argument, actually.

                  Seriously, just stop already. you're making a complete moron out of yourself. You took an incredibly hysterical and stupid argument and just ran with it. Learn to just say "oops, my bad" when someone calls you on your BS.

                  In other words, grow up.

                  "Heck, make it 61 so we can tell Lieberman to go play in traffic." - Geotpf

                  by Deano963 on Sat May 17, 2014 at 12:12:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm (accurately) accusing you of not having the balls to deride Meteor Blades for expressing virtually the exact same opinion you've derided me for in such an unhinged manner for expressing... yes, absolutely, you feel you can address me in this manner and yet you've not even mustered a mewl towards the DIARIST...

                    I "seem to believe" (based on your words) that you think this nomination is no big deal and anyone who dares to even hint at the possibility that it has potentially dangerous and longterm ramifications is an "idiot"...

                    Kind of funny, you were able to latch onto my comment like a stray dog on a pork chop yet somehow you've avoided the DIARIST'S comments? There's a word for that... "chickenshit"...

                    You might wanna try chamomile... it tends to mellow one out...

                    Baby, where I come from...

                    by ThatSinger on Sat May 17, 2014 at 01:49:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You even rec'ed MB's comment... (0+ / 0-)


                      There was your chance to call him an "idiot" for expressing concern over this nomination... and instead you rec'ed his comment...

                      Eddie Haskell? Is that you?

                      Baby, where I come from...

                      by ThatSinger on Sat May 17, 2014 at 02:08:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You completely missed the entire point..... (0+ / 0-)

                        AGAIN. It' know what? I give up.....

                        You're too f*%#ing stupid to argue with. It's like trying to reason with A Tea Partier or my brother who watches nothing but Hannity. Any and all facts are ignored, b/c you heard something idiotic somewhere and internalized as God's truth. You're right, I'm wrong, and I'm sure a few years from now I'll be on here saying, "Wow, now that President Cruz has nominated Michael Boggs for SCOTUS, I sure do owe ThatSinger an apology".

                        Or more likely, that doesn't happen, and I'm just happy looking back that I stopped arguing with and idiot. After all, isn't the saying, "Never argue with an idiot? They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?

                        I have newfound appreciation for that saying now.

                        I guess it's true what they can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

                        "Heck, make it 61 so we can tell Lieberman to go play in traffic." - Geotpf

                        by Deano963 on Sun May 18, 2014 at 11:28:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  Why do you think Boggs' rejection would... (7+ / 0-)

    piss off the President?

    He was only nominated as part of the Republicans' side of a deal; it's not like he was an Obama favorite.

    If you cut a deal that cost you something and got something from the other side, and then someone else saved you from even having to pay that cost, would you be pissed off?

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:11:14 PM PDT

  •  MB, how can you write a post about this topic... (12+ / 0-)

    And not mention the prime mover behind it, Pat Leahy?

    It's Leahy's acquiescence to Republican blue-slip abuse that made a deal necessary in the first place.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:16:21 PM PDT

  •  Whadda Dweeb - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball

    And why, again, was he nominated??

  •  Dems dont need to worry about pissing off Obama (0+ / 0-)

    Its a sure bet noone else in the world does.
    Unless youre in some god forsaken desert or jungle shithole where youre open to a drone strike.
    Ask Vlad the Bare/Bear Wrestler.
    (Pissing off Michele, now that would give one pause.)

    •  Dem Senators know full well they won't piss off (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tony Situ

      Obama....According to Jay Carney:

      The president of course believes that each senator should vote as he or she sees fit....


      The president supports voting your conscience as a general matter.

      We once again find  gnashing of teeth at Obama, meanwhile Patrick Leahy's "blue slip" rule, which provides that Senators from the state of the nominee (in this case Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, who have been blocking the President for lo these many years) give consent before the nominated candidate can have a hearing, has given Republicans a hand in their obstructionism.... No one is angry at Leahy, of course not, the anger must be directed at Obama!
  •  2 GOOD circuit judges > 5 district judges, BUT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sulthernao, Deano963

    why blue-slip circuit judges, since they serve multiple states?

    Also given how bad the Senate has become, blue slips should be jettisoned completely.

  •  Damn Blades, (0+ / 0-)

    You might just pull this off. Good on ya!

    "the northern lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see. Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge, I cremated Sam McGee". - Robert Service, Bard of the Yukon

    by Joe Jackson on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:34:55 PM PDT

  •  Question on Republican support (0+ / 0-)

    You state that it's unlikely he will receive strong Republican support. Why? He was picked by a Republican and seems to represent their views. Why won't he get most Republicans?

  •  I'm confused... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO, raboof, JVolvo

    We have to vote Democrats in because of the courts!  WE have to have liberals on the court to combat the conservatives....

    Oh, wait...I'm confused now.

    •  Not surprised you're confused. This diary is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NedSparks, Deano963

      misleading by omitting the facts of what's really going on.  Seems intentionally misleading to pander to SUX crowd.

      One of the progressive judges that is part of this deal has been nominated by President Obama THREE times, and holds were put on her and her nomination eventually "returned" to the WH, unvoted on.  This is a judge that progressives have been clamouring for.  But due to idiotic Senate rules, there was no way to get her voted on after THREE nominations.  So this deal was made to nominate this right winger to get her and other progressive judges through the Senate.  Yet the diary reads like the President's overriding goal is confirmation of a neo-confederate, just because!

      And what's with the "pissing off the President"?  The diarist knows (from his comments) what's going on, yet gives the impression that the President would be royally pissed at this guy being rejected.  smh

      •  Totally agree. I don't think Obama could (0+ / 0-)

        care less if the guy is rejected. As long as he gets the democratic picks through I doubt he'd give two shits if Reid refused to schedule floor votes on any of the republican picks.

        The deal, after all, was only that all of the nominees would get hearings.....

        "Heck, make it 61 so we can tell Lieberman to go play in traffic." - Geotpf

        by Deano963 on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:39:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  His head looks like a 20# ham. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I never vote for Southern guys with ham heads.

    "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes
    Teh Twitterz, I'z awn dem.
    Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

    by OleHippieChick on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:04:40 PM PDT

  •  called both my senators...and said (0+ / 0-)

    that I oppose this. I'm lucky enough to live in CA, but for anyone else.

    The Confederate flag?  What?


  •  Sen Reid needs to have a talk with Sen Leahy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur, JVolvo

    about blue slip and soon

    "I've not talked to [Judiciary Chairman] Pat Leahy personally. I will do that," Reid said in an interview with BuzzFeed. "Unless I have a better explanation. I can't vote for him. This is a lifetime appointment. He's said some things and made some decisions I think are not very good." Reid's comments come as Boggs' nomination facing mounting opposition both in the Senate and from the Democratic base. Progressive groups and several Democratic members of Congress have openly questioned and fought with the Obama administration over Boggs, who as a state legislator supported abortion restrictions, the Confederate flag and opposed same-sex marriage. At a confirmation hearing on Tuesday in front of the Judiciary Committee, Boggs would not comment on personal opinions and said that his record as a state judge was non-partisan as opposed to the positions he took as a lawmaker when he was representing constituents...
    Reid can send this back to committee for reconsideration, too. Boggs only needs 51 votes to put him on the bench. If all 45 Republicans vote yea, he'll only need 6 Democrats. That is well within the realm of very possible and Reid knows it.

    Even more of a concern than Boggs vote on the Confederate flag is his position on abortion and voting rights.

  •  I just don't get it.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur, JVolvo

    ...why POTUS Obama wants to create even an illusion that he supports this nomination is mystifying.

    Our nations quality of life is based on the rightousness of its people.

    by kalihikane on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:08:16 PM PDT

    •  Good way to keep real Democrats at home #128 (0+ / 0-)

      So, as the midterms approach, President Obama has decided on the strategy of killing the Internet and appointing arch-conservative judges. What could possibly go wrong with the midterm elections?

      +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

      by cybersaur on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:37:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree kalihikane. I don't get it either. How did (0+ / 0-)

      this guy EVER get nominated? Is Obama working some appeasement angle toward the Repubs/Baggers that we're simply not aware of? That's the only explanation I can come up with.

      •  As with most things POTUS has appeared... (0+ / 0-)

        ..."caught backed into a corner the end we might be the ones looking awkward... or maybe not.  just saying.

        Our nations quality of life is based on the rightousness of its people.

        by kalihikane on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:32:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Give Obama some credit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tony Situ

    Obama is likely giving lip service to continuing to support this guy: if you read between the lines, it's clear he doesn't care if the guy gets confirmed or not (probably would rather not, actually). When he says that Boggs was a compromise pick that was necessary to getting preferred people through, he is telegraphing what he thinks of Boggs. When he says Boggs is qualified, well, what else is he supposed to say, having nominated him and all? Politics is the art of Kabuki. Obama's good at it, too. He's getting a liberal circuit court pick in a region dominated by conservative senators.

    The 11th Circuit (covering Florida, Alabama, Georgia) will be dominated by Democratic picks for decades if he can stay on this roll. Of the three non-Dems sitting on that court, one was appointed by Gerald Ford (born in 1929). How much longer do we think he can hold on?There are six Dem picks on the court now, three GOP picks, and three vacancies. If Obama gets his two picks through (Pryor, Carnes), the next GOP president will be precluded from packing the court with fire breathing conservatives, and have a smaller bench for future SCOTUS appointments. It's true that Carnes is originally a GHWB pick to the district court, but she's already 64 years old, so it's basically a punt on that seat that still may prevent a bona fide teabagger from sitting in it for a while.


    It's always darkest before it gets less dark.

    by Karma Electra on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:57:17 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the info. I was just about to look this (0+ / 0-)

      up. Given how much the Georgia senators have blocked Pryor in the past, I'm sure she'll be a good addition to the Court.

      "Heck, make it 61 so we can tell Lieberman to go play in traffic." - Geotpf

      by Deano963 on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:47:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site