DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION Lines Up AGAINST Obama Judicial Nominee

[Segami]

BLUE SLIP - Senate

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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip

The serious problem of Republican obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominees in is in full display now. Ironically, it's apparent because of Democratic opposition to an Obama appointee. In order to keep Georgia's Republican senators from blocking him from appointing any judges for vacancies in that state, Obama made a bad deal and gave them their pick on two nominations. One of them, Michael Boggs, is up for consideration this week.

Liberals are incensed that the administration is pushing hard for Michael Boggs, a judge on Georgia's state Court of Appeals, to join the federal bench in Georgia. Boggs, a conservative Democrat, voted while in the state Legislature to reinstate a version of the Confederate flag as the state flag, opposed same-sex marriage and took positions on abortion that critics say would have limited women's rights.


For years Georgia's two Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, have blocked Obama's judicial nominees from that state. Although the filibuster is no more, the two senators have been able to maintain their veto because of a procedure, called a "blue slip," adopted by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.


The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider Boggs and other Georgia nominees Tuesday. Leahy is stepping aside to allow Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), an outspoken critic of Boggs, to lead the hearing. And the room will be packed with opponents from women's groups, gay rights groups and civil rights groups.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-judges-20140512-story.html

It's encouraging that Leahy is having Blumenthal lead Tuesday's hearing on Boggs, a nominee who any Democrat should be opposing. This is not a nominee who will represent Obama or further his legacy. And nominees like Boggs, as well as others Obama has essentially been forced to put forward, don't have to be approved. It's a matter of choice. Obama could choose not to accede to Republican demand if Leahy chooses to stop abiding by the blue slip tradition.


In the meantime, Boggs must be stopped. Please sign and send the petition: Reject Michael Boggs’s nomination to the U.S. District Court in Georgia.




http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298836/-Democratic-opposition-lines-up-against-Obama-judicial-nbsp-nominee

[Enthusiast]

1. Why does the President do stuff like this?

[WillyT]

4. He Doesn't Have To Run Again... And Is Seeking His "Bi-Partisan" Legacy...

[Recursion]

35. Did nobody read the article? Chambliss picked him

Obama gave Cambliss two picks so that Chambliss won't block the remaining picks.

[BainsBane]

37. There you go again

Reading articles and stuff. When will you learn?

[rhett o rick]

48. Another Michael Boggs fan steps forward. nm

[KittyWampus]

59. Not liking Boggs isn't mutually exclusive w/ understanding the politics involved

in his nomination.

[BainsBane]

63. Right. That's exactly what I said

I don't even know WTF he is. Why do people that they have to insult over nothing? Jesus. I made a silly comment to a friend. I said nothing about this story or the events in question.

[rhett o rick]

66. I did jump to a conclusion. Your snarky comment seemed to imply that you supported Michael Boggs.

Apparently anyone that disagrees "didnt read the OP".

Well the OP says:

This is not a nominee who will represent Obama or further his legacy. And nominees like Boggs, as well as others Obama has essentially been forced to put forward, don't have to be approved. It's a matter of choice. Obama could choose not to accede to Republican demand if Leahy chooses to stop abiding by the blue slip tradition.

I agree, do you?

[rhett o rick]

40. Once again, it's the bad Republicans responsible and not the Pres. nm

[KittyWampus]

60. Yes, Rhett. It's called "Politics". Which involves "Opposition".

[rhett o rick]

67. So where do you stand? Do you agree with the OP? nm

[cui bono]

71. Yes. Obama made that deal. That gave us Boggs.

You can't blame that on anyone but Obama. He didn't have to make that deal.

[Dragonfli]

13. I imagine he thinks he will make a fine judge

He appears to agree more with those he appoints than was originally advertised. Look at his financial appointments as an example, also look at Clapper and Penny.

I don'y understand why, but I am told half the country agrees with the right wing on most things, I suppose he is just honestly one of them, but also one smart enough to know it would have been harder for him to get elected as a Republican being a person of color, so he registered pragmatically as a Democrat as have many republicans since the mid eighties for similar reasons. It is the only thing that explains the Third Way Democrats when you think about it.

[Enthusiast]

18. It's sad. That's all I can say.

[Recursion]

34. Facepalm. Obama didn't pick him, Chambliss did

Did you read the OP?

[Dragonfli]

39. Yes of course, Obama has nothing to do with appointing federal judges

he has no power at all, yadda yadda, the Republicans make him do everything, they run the Executive branch and the Senate as well as the house.

He is weak as a kitten when bad things happen, and strong as a lion when good things happen, I know I have been told all this for six years now.

[rhett o rick]

42. So do you support the Pres on this or the Democrats that want to block the

appointment?

[Recursion]

44. Sigh

No, I'm not going down that road. Why does it matter whom I "support"? I'm just irritated at the dishonesty of pretending this was Obama's pick when it was Chambliss's, a pick Obama gave him in return for his not blocking four other appointments.

If the Senate Democrats don't feel like those four appointments are worth it, that's their call, and they can block this (and them).

[rhett o rick]

49. Interesting that you wont tell us where you stand. I support the Democrats on this.

It's about time they stand up to the Republicans.


First of all you dont present any evidence that Pres Obama doesnt like this guy. He has appointed many other conservatives without being "forced" by the, apparently powerful, Republicans.

Second, the Pres was a party to this negotiation in which it appears Chambliss got the best of.

Third, We must draw the line at Michael Boggs.

Fourth, "I'm just irritated at the dishonesty of pretending this was Obama's pick when it was Chambliss's, a pick Obama gave him in return for his not blocking four other appointments. " What dishonesty? No one is saying what you are accusing. Everyone knows about the "blue slip" problem. Are you saying that Democrats opposed to Boggs are "dishonest".

Do you support the appointment of Michael Boggs or not?

[msanthrope]

17. As the OP pointed out, Senatorial privilege creates this problem. Should the President

not fill the seat?

[Dragonfli]

19. Is it really better to fill a vacancy with someone that can do great damage?

First do no harm comes to mind to me, I realize it is not a medical position, but perhaps a vacant seat would mean less harm than someone that appears to hate women passionately, as well as hate gays, and I imagine minorities (thinking of his apparent love of the confederacy of days past).

I really think trying to survive without a doctor would be better than hiring a Mengele, but that is just me.
You appear to think the damage is worth it because you abhor an empty slot, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree,

[Recursion]

27. No; this is a deal. He appoints four, they appoint two

I think it's four that he has in GA. At any rate, this isn't exactly rocket science: he needs judges appointed, and this is the bone he has to throw Republicans to get it.

[msanthrope]

31. A vacant seat means people like my clients get to sit in places like, PRISON, for longer. It means

other people don't get their cases heard. It's what Grover Norquist wants---shrinking the government and drowning it in a bathtub.

While you are talking principles...the federal docket grinds to an effective halt as people are forced to wait for justice.

THAT is a Libertarian/RW viewpoint---breaking the government so that citizens distrust it entirely, and is a back door way to "tort reform."

[Dragonfli]

38. They get to get quick "justice" from ...... him?

I imagine one would prefer the wait to getting him as a judge, especially if one were a woman. But I guess even a really bad judge that would screw a client over would lead to that client being billed, so its all good then.

This is sort of like giving in to the libertarians demands isn't it? if they can't slow justice, then perhaps they can fill the bench with creatures like this instead and WIN their cases, no matter how ridiculous their cases may be.

Sounds like libertarians win and justice loses, but the lawyer gets paid to me.

[msanthrope]

52. The federal docket needs to move...slow courts benefit no one. And yes...we lawyers

get paid. Deal.

[Dragonfli]

54. At least you are honest about preferring bad judges that screw over Women and minorities

so that you can get paid more promptly.

There has been more honesty in this thread than I have seen in a long time.

[msanthrope]

57. Yes....I want a federal judge in a circuit I don't practice in so my clients will pay me quicker!!

That makes LOADS of sense!!

Look, I get that it's frustrating when you have a perfectly good Obama-bashing thread completely shot down by facts and reasoned argument...but insulting lawyers? That's soooooo played.

[rhett o rick]

45. And as the OP points out, Democrats should get some backbone and tell

the President "hell no". It's interesting that Republicans can force the President's hand but Democrats cant.

"Should the President not fill the seat?" Not with this guy. Do you go along with this nomination?

[msanthrope]

55. Democrats blue-slipped Sotomayor under Bush....again, do you have a solution to the Senatorial

privilege? Or are you complaining without offering a fix to the problem?

[rhett o rick]

58. I will gladly give you my ideas, but you only ask questions. Tell us how you stand.

Do you support the Presidents conservative Michael Boggs or the DEmocrats that oppose him?

[msanthrope]

62. I think the package deal will be passed by a majority of Democrats. Boggs isn't the most troubling

aspect of this deal, however, and I note you keep avoiding the primary issue....

Leahy is refusing to do his job, and has given his fellow Senators a pass. I think Leahy allowing Chambliss this package is the primary problem here....

Look, Leahy can solve this with a stroke of the pen. With a single stroke of the pen he absolutely guts Chambliss and Isakson.

Get rid of blue slipping, and Boggs is never a viable candidate (nor should he be.) With blue slipping, Chambliss gets his package deal, enabled by Leahy.


FYI...I assume you are going to take the time to read up on the package deal, because it's apparent from your posts that you are unaware of the other six nominees today.

[rhett o rick]

65. I agree with you. Well, except for your last paragraph. I guess you just can resist.

In a past post you accused me of disparaging Democrats. I will disparage those that call themselves Democrats but follow Republican ideologies like Mr. Boggs. I wish it were as easy as supporting all Democrats.

[msanthrope]

69. You can disparage Boggs all you want...I have no interest in defending him. The fact remains,

however, that the narrative your initial posts on this thread pushed was far too facile, and ultimately failed to take into account the primary issue of Senatorial privilege.

And the fact is that the issue of Senatorial privilege is far, far more important than the daily ODS diatribes.

[yeoman6987]

61. The Republicans are using the Democrats rule

Although the filibuster is no more, the two senators have been able to maintain their veto because of a procedure, called a "blue slip," adopted by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.



Frustrating that the Republicans are using the Democratic rule...I know.

[rhett o rick]

68. This is another "rule" that is being abused and needs to end. nm

[Recursion]

25. "Judge swaps" aren't exactly new

It's a time-tested way to get appointments through the Senate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. I s'pose it's less controversial than wife swaps for the same purpose.

Though I wouldn't put it past the DC set.

[GeorgeGist]

32. I think he sees himself ...

As the last moderate republican.

[neverforget]

2. A possible lifetime appointment for a right wing hack by Obama because of

the blue slip tradition.

[KoKo]

3. Thanks for this post. His other Judicial Appointment is the one Who Approved BinLaden's Killing...

Known as the "Kill Switch Attorney" (or something like that).

What is wrong with Obama. Why does he have to constantly cater to the RW and our Dems in Congress also allow him to get away with it with their twists and turns in the Parliamentary Senate/House Voting machinations. The Repugs can mostly get their way by using Tricks in the House and Senate Rules...but we Dems don't seem to be able to play that game anymore. Or, we don't want to. It gets so frustrating.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. So, where are the cheerleaders telling us

why this isn't what it looks like. Or why it's completely justifiable. Or that we all have whatever the hell that derangement thing is that they're so quick to jump on every time someone says the slightest thing against their god.

Hellooooooooooooooooooooooooo . . . .

[baldguy]

7. Call me when the opposition starts parroting RW libertarian talking points.

[Dragonfli]

14. Isn't Boggs the opposition?

[baldguy]

21. Try actually reading the OP before commenting.

[Dragonfli]

23. Well, I did: he hates Women, Gay folks, and Minorities

Check, check, and check, yes definitely the opposition, what is it that you like so much about him? Is it his pretense of being a Democrat while being the opposite?

[baldguy]

24. Ah, I see. For you, political positions are pre-defined and don't depend on contextual information.

Like, from the real world.

So when you see a headlines "DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION Lines Up AGAINST Obama Judicial Nominee" you need to shoehorn that reality into your own skewed worldview, and it doesn't quite fit.

You're happy stereotyping people, and anyone who you think agrees with you is us until you find out the stereotype doesn't fit or they might disagree with you, in which case they become the deadly enemy them. Kind of like the thing Teabaggers do. And not a very liberal attitude.

[Dragonfli]

28. So, you really like this guy and his abhorrent positions eh?

Well, at least your honest about your beliefs, honesty is a big plus in my book so you have that going for you.

Also, I did not go by the headline, I went by what was reported about his questionable judgments, for some reason, the D doesn't do it for me when they make the same judicial decisions as any random far right republican that is anti-choice, anti-gay and anti-civil liberties.

Tell me, do you disapprove of all Democrats that believe in the right to choose, the right to marriage equality and are disdainful of the confederate culture that was all about fighting for the right to own human beings or is it just me you disapprove of for holding basically the opposite position regarding his views on such matters?

Are you sure you are a Democrat? Hasn't anyone ever told you that Democrats in general do not share the views that you and Boggs champion?

I guess I don't get "Democrats" that are so anti-everything equality and civil rights that they would be welcomed with open arms at a meeting of The John Birch Society.

I don't suppose I will ever agree with your anti-choice, anti-marriage equality and and civil liberty flavor of "Democratic" beliefs so there is not much point in further interaction between us.

[baldguy]

29. There you go again, using your own prejudices to set up a straw man to knock down.

Instead of facing the unfortunate reality that Obama's critics on the Left have a disconcerting habit of using RW libertarian talking points (aka "lies&quot against him.

Pointing this fact out is not "cheerleading" (which is what my original response was responding to.)

And thinking people (meaning the "Democratic Opposition" in the OP) can be critical of the President without descending into a looney-Left version of Teabaggerism.

[theHandpuppet]

33. In other words...

You really don't have any answers to Dragonfli's questions, so attacking any criticism of Obama is supposed to either serve as a substitute or to shut people up. WRONG.

[bobduca]

46. BINGO

the same pointless bluster as usual.

[rhett o rick]

70. Here is what the OP says: "This is not a nominee who will represent Obama or further his legacy.

And nominees like Boggs, as well as others Obama has essentially been forced to put forward, don't have to be approved. It's a matter of choice. Obama could choose not to accede to Republican demand if Leahy chooses to stop abiding by the blue slip tradition."

Have you said whether you like the choice of Boggs or not?

[progressoid]

11. Now now. Let's not be too critical.

You're just discouraging GOTV and stuff.

We all need to come together and sing Kumbayah for the betterment of the party.

[msanthrope]

15. What's your remedy to the blue slip problem then? You do realize that the President must

fill these vacancies, and as the OP notes, it's really Leahy who needs to take charge here.

[U4ikLefty]

20. ^^^ Here's your answer.

[Recursion]

26. *shrug* it even says in the article this is part of a deal (nt)

[MohRokTah]

6. I've already written to my Democratic Senator who sits on the Judiciary Committee. eom

[Autumn]

8. Some days.

[woo me with science]

72. More like every single day

with this administration.

[n2doc]

9. In January, Georgia may have Senator Nunn

And the problem is reduced. Could be eliminated if they get rid of this undemocratic blue slip crap.

[tritsofme]

10. Sonia Sotomayor was appointed by George H.W. Bush under similar circumstances.

This sort of horse trading is nothing new. Although somewhat ironically given the nuclear option, Boggs' opponents in the Senate face a higher hurdle.

[rhett o rick]

12. I am surprised at those that ask why? This is typical of Pres Obama's nominations and appointments.

He appointed Penny Pritzker, for crying out loud. Need I say more?

[msanthrope]

16. So what's your solution to the blue slip problem? nt

[baldguy]

22. They have no clue about what you're talking about, so don't expect an answer.

[msanthrope]

30. I think that's disrespectful to the OP, frankly. The OP put together a very well researched piece

on a Senatorial privilege, and it ends up being an ODS whinefest because no one is interested in actually talking civics.

Maybe there's another thread fluffing Greenwald somewhere.

[rhett o rick]

36. Why does it seem that this is the only president ever to face with that devastating problem?

Seems that some find excuses for appointment after appointment of conservatives by Pres Obama, rationalizing that the Republicans are forcing him to do it. Did Republicans force him to appoint Pritzker and Emanuel?

[Recursion]

41. Except for every past President too. W had to appoint Sotomayor to her last court, too

Why people suddenly notice this now is a bit confusing...

[msanthrope]

53. Every President faced this problem...thus, Sotomayor was appointed by Bush. Again...do you

have a solution?

[woo me with science]

73. Absolutely typical.

And always the same few, defending everything he does.

States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines. A great deal of effort goes into trying to create the illusion that Americans have no trouble with being incessantly lied to about whom and what our supposed "representatives" actually represent.

[Jefferson23]

43. Blumenthal is my good Senator, he'll fight back on this. n/t

[Jefferson23]

47. snip* To secure his legacy, President Obama needs to act now,and make as many nominations

as possible.And to that he’ll need Senate Democrats to shift gears on blue-slips and abandon the single-senator veto. Yes, tradition is important, but for a liberal presidency, it’s not nearly as important as ending the right’s three-decade dominance of the courts.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/michael_boggs_judicial_nomination_president_obama_shouldn_t_nominate_judges.html

[rhett o rick]

51. Is there any evidence that Pres Obama doesnt like Michael Boggs? If not,

we may be making the wrong assumption here. The Pres has appointed lots of conservatives.

[Jefferson23]

64. I'm not sure there is evidence he disapproves. I don't think a conversation about

this topic should exclude the Leahy issue in the Senate, either...for which Obama
is not responsible.

I also don't think it should exclude something I find even more relevant in looking at this
issue and that is the reluctance Obama has exhibited regarding the number of his
nominations...they lag far behind Clinton and especially, Bush.

Why? I don't know.

Where we do have indications, somewhat, are that his views on judicial philosophy are ambiguous.
He had a reputation as a pragmatist as a law professor, someone who then challenged a firmer
liberal ideology. As a primary candidate he has a different record, he was against Roberts and
filibustered Bush appointees..but not all.

[rock]

56. When you sup with the devil use a long spoon

Doesn't appear to be long enough in this case.

[woo me with science]

74. K&R