Hooray! A (Bad) Presidential Nomination Is Dead

[n2doc]

The quest by President Obama to put Michael P. Boggs – who supported the Confederate flag and opposed abortion – on the federal bench in Georgia is over.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, who leads the Judiciary Committee, told us it had become clear after talking to his colleagues that Mr. Boggs, under fire from Democrats for his conservative positions, could not win committee support.

Mr. Leahy signaled that Mr. Boggs should withdraw: “He doesn’t have the votes.”

Mr. Boggs earns the unusual distinction as the first Obama judicial nominee this term to fail because of Democratic opposition.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/09/22/?entry=86

[daleanime]

1. Kick....

[billhicks76]

95. Obama=Bush

People don't wanna hear it because the truth hurts but read this latest Chris Hedges article and then tell me he's wrong. http://www.alternet.org/activism/totalitarianism-american-style?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

[riqster]

2. Now Obama can say, "sorry guys, I tried". And we can get a better nominee.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. To whom is he supposed to say "Sorry, guys, I tried"?

Not to me. Perhaps Governor Deal? Maybe Senator Cruz?

To me, and others like me who voted for him twice, he should say, "Sorry, guys, I fucked up. I don't know what I was thinking."

[riqster]

6. The two senators from the state in question.

Have you followed the history of this nomination, and the politics involved?

[Jack Rabbit]

8. No, as a matter of fact, I haven't

However, if you're talking about the two Senators from Georgia, Chambliss and Isakson, have either of them given the President a vote in the last six years or have they marched lock step with the Koch brothers in opposing anything and everything Obama proposes? What does he owe them beyond a kick in the teeth?

[msanthrope]

9. This is a Senate Blue Slips problem---there's a whole history here....

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/03/senator-leahy-and-blue-slips

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024555117

[Cha]

90. thank you for this, msanthrope.. I knew there would be knee jerk reactions. But, I was aware

somewhat of the history.. just hadn't seen Kevin Drum's history on it.

Without knowing anything though.. I knew there had to be something else going on because this is not the type of person the President nominates. Just have to know his history to know there's more to this than meets the eye.

THe Good News is.. no Michael Boggs!

[msanthrope]

103. You are quite welcome, and I thank you for your defense and kind words.

Politics is like sausage....you don't want to see it being made. H

[riqster]

11. Try googling "blue slip". Ideally, before you post.

[msanthrope]

13. I mean Jesus, right? nt

[riqster]

16. The Right, sad to say, does not have a monopoly on knee-jerk reactions.

It's bad enough trying to educate the Teabaggers, without having to also explain 6th-grade materials to people on our own side.

Sigh.

HEAVY sigh.

[msanthrope]

20. Yeah...you should have seen some of my posts during the DADT wars. That's when I realized that the

people most frustrated with the President want an authoritarian dictator the most. If Obama could just wave a wand, like Chavez, everything would be OK.

[still_one]

34. and it seems you are an apologist for every the President does. Sometimes there are things that the

President should be criticized for, and to make excuses does a disservice to him

[BumRushDaShow]

39. The sheer lack of knowledge of Civics on DU is the problem. nt

[still_one]

46. Not sure your point, but are you suggesting this was a good nomination by the president?

[BumRushDaShow]

62. No.

But doing this reveals the other (hidden) means for "filibuster" (basically negating the nuclear option that attempted to halt the nominee blocks) that the Senate still has - all under the purview of the Judiciary chairman (in this case, Leahy). This despite the horrible nominee being "approved" via "blue slip" by the 2 GOP Senators in that state.

So if at some point, as the media shills keep insisting, that the Senate turns over, the new GOP chairman would for sure torpedo any Democratic judicial nominee under this administration - whether reinforced by "blue slip" disapprovals by GOP Senators if nominated from a red state -or- despite any "blue slip" approvals by Dem Senators for nominees from blue states.

I.e., the fact that this "blue slip process" is occurring at all in this manner, is of Leahy's choosing and does not need to be (i.e., when Hatch was in the same position, he "changed the rules" continually to benefit the GOP).

[Cha]

91. No, msanthrope is not an "apologist" for everything the President does.. yes there are times

for constructive criticism. But, here she is explaining how the procedure works and why he had to nominate some Neanderthal(I've read on DU that that isn't nice to call anyone that but I'm thinking it fits) from Georgia, still_one.

[TBF]

52. Right on track with an insult to the far left -

it's a wonder dems win any elections at all. If this is how you treat fellow voters I can only imagine how you treat enemies. Or is the far-left the enemy?

Hmmm.

[Jakes Progress]

64. Maybe it's just "the left".

You know attack anything liberal or progressive. Gets lots of replies and lets you puff up and be a pretend intellectual. You know like all the libertarians down at the local bar.

At least they are consistent and reliable.

[NealK]

66. +1

[msanthrope]

72. You are talking to an attorney who works voter protection

for the Democrats, and who is conversant in Senate rules and defending the President. I know what I will be doing on Election Day...protecting the right to vote.

And my posts against Libertarians aren't just for show.

Blame the President First isn't my meme.

[sabrina 1]

106. And do you think that you are the only person here who is 'conversant in Senate rules'?

There it is again, that condescending attitude towards DUers who dare to criticize this president's policies. I believe we had this discussion on DU recently.

Fyi, there are many DUers who are very 'conversant' with 'senate rules' which does not in any way explain the many Republican nominations made by this President.

How does your 'expertise' in Senate rules explain the appointment of CEOs from Monsanto, Republicans in National Security!! Nominations which got by our own party members?

Are there NO DEMOCRATS allowed in National Security by those 'Senate Rules'??

Save the condescension for those who are ignorant of 'how the Senate works'. T his is DU where members are among the most informed regarding how our government works.

Thankfully this one nomination was too awful to get by Democrats, but a few others, almost as bad HAVE managed to get through. THAT is going to have to be a major issue in the next election.

[woo me with science]

110. No, no.

Remember. It's very important to keep the attorney and PR roles separate:

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5242407

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5242664

[msanthrope]

113. Oh, woo....there you are! nt

[woo me with science]

116. The record of behavior is always important.

It establishes patterns of behavior, reveals credibility or lack thereof, and helps in determining agenda.

[msanthrope]

117. Oh woo...why not alert on my posts, report me to admin, or

at least say what you mean, plainly?

[woo me with science]

118. What's unclear?

There was nothing veiled or hinted at in those posts. I even gave examples of the behavior with links.

And why would anyone run to admins? When have they ever shown an inclination to intervene re: PR defense of this administration, even when it misrepresents the law, as in the links I provided. Good grief, there are voices here *constantly* denying everything this administration does, right in front of our faces.

This is what we live with now at DU. The best we can do is point out the patterns.

[msanthrope]

120. You are unclear. This is a partisan, Democratic website, and yet, you

seem to have a problem when Democrats accurately point out the law, civics, or in this case, Senate Rules.

You seem to be very angry when people support President Obama.

Why is that?

[Number23]

136. Like clockwork!

Positive thread? Seriously MIA

Thread full of criticism, and doom and gloom no matter how ill informed? "....there you are!"

[msanthrope]

71. The Far Left should be insulted when they carry water for

the Republicans through their ignorance.....seriously....the lack of knowledge of basic Senate rules is embarrassing.

[TBF]

82. Are you just insulting folks in general or do you have a specific

post to point to?

[Cha]

92. Mahalo, msanthrope.. I really appreciate your knowledge of this whole Boggs fiasco. :(

[Jakes Progress]

138. You sure do hate those lefties, eh?

At least you are consistent.

[Egnever]

79. No they dont

You can see it here every day.

I am stunned daily by how many here cant read past a headline.

[flpoljunkie]

24. Apparently, they have not. Here's why Obama nominated him, though one can make a good argument

it might be preferable to keep the seats vacant--if Isakson and Chambliss are the ones making the picks!

The Boggs pick was part of a larger deal with the GOP senators to get more important, higher-level circuit court judges confirmed in the state. It highlights what’s known as the “blue slip” process, a Senate tradition requiring both senators to approve of a judicial nominee before the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing.

Without Isakson’s and Chambliss’ blessing, the judicial nominees in Georgia would simply go vacant — despite last year’s use of the “nuclear option” eliminating filibusters of most nominations. So the White House cut a deal.

“The blue slip rule for judicial nominees has been more problematic than the filibuster because it can act as a silent, unaccountable veto,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in an email, echoing comments made last month to The Huffington Post by White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler. “But given this constraint, our choice is clear: do we work with Republican senators to find a compromise or should we leave the seats vacant? We believe it would be grossly irresponsible for the president to leave these seats vacant.”

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/debo-adegbile-defeat-emboldens-michael-boggs-opponents/?dcz=

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Thank you

I am conversant in civics, but I'm inexplicably cranky this morning.

[msanthrope]

30. Keeping this seat vacant would have kept more vacant--since Leahy worked this

into a 7 judge deal.

[Louisiana1976]

53. Obama shouldn't have been pushing someone who was in favor of the Confederate flag and was

against abortion. That's unDemocratic.

[still_one]

73. Appreciate the explanation. Is this the excuse used when the President put social security

Cost of living on the table, because it is bad policy

This 3 D chess is bullshit

[Aerows]

80. Lord have mercy if Saxby Chambliss wants someone

any damn move in the universe necessary to prevent that from happening is a good thing.

[MohRokTah]

38. The two Senators from Georgia, maybe?

I dunno, did you have 8th grade Civics where you learned about things like blue slips?

[Jack Rabbit]

48. I had an eighth grade civics where I memorized the Constitution

But I don't think they had blue slips in those days (1966).

At Daniel Webster Junior High School, Stockton, California, a blue slip was the form the teacher filled out when he or she sent you to the dean's office.

[MohRokTah]

51. It's called "senatorial courtesy".

It used to be that Senators issued a blue slip if they objected to a nominee, but the nomination could move forward any way.

Starting in 1956 that changed so that a home state Senator could stop all action by issuing a negative blue slip or no blue slip at all on a nominee.

It's stupid, but there we are.

[Jack Rabbit]

54. In any case, it wasn't part of the curriculum in 1966

By the way, the civics class I received in eighth was very thorough.

However, Republican senators still did their job in those days and only objected to a judicial nomination if there was a good reason to object. It was the exception and not the rule.

However, this isn't Everett Dirksen's GOP.

[MohRokTah]

60. Yes, Civics probably ignored it back then as a simple procedural nicety.

By the time I took Civics in 1978, it was more commonly used to block nominees.

[rhett o rick]

68. Do the Democrats use that rule? Or just the obstructionist Repubs? nm

[MohRokTah]

70. The Democrats used it, though Orrin Hatch suspended it under Bush. eom

[Recursion]

89. Yes, Democrats have used it (nt)

[Recursion]

76. They've had them since 1789. Why didn't your civics class mention them?

Mine did. And every President in my lifetime has done judge swaps.

[Recursion]

74. The two Senators who were blocking all other nominees until this guy got a vote (nt)

[progressoid]

107. ^^^this^^^

[Amonester]

5. Secret nth-degree chessmaster's move!

[msanthrope]

10. No--it's a Senate Blue Slips problem, which someone who is conversant in civics is well aware of....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024555117

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/03/senator-leahy-and-blue-slips

You might want to take the time to educate yourself, and then call Leahy's office.

[riqster]

14. Amazing how many people are so ignorant when it comes to civics, innit?

Thanks for your posts.

[msanthrope]

15. Ignorance and ODS are a powerful combo. You are welcome. Of course,

I'll probably be alerted on for my snarkiness, or some such shit.

[riqster]

17. Away wi' yer facts, laddie! We'll nae be havin' such here!

[msanthrope]

18. A um nay laddie! See me username! nt

[riqster]

23. Och aye, me apologies! 'Twas an error on mai paurt.

Seriously, I do apologize. Looking at the name, I feel a proper Eedjit.

[msanthrope]

31. Not a problem. Being taken for a male is the least offensive thing I'm accused of

on this board.

[riqster]

36. Thanks.

[Recursion]

75. Ummm... not terribly secret, or nth-dimensional.

Georgia's Senators were blocking all judicial nominations if this guy didn't get appointed. Obama did a judge swap, just like every other President in history has, but suddenly DU noticed.

[LondonReign2]

26. Lamest. Rationalization. Ever.

[riqster]

27. Bollocks. The Blue Slip ties his hands, tighter than a filibuster.

Learn some civics.

[LondonReign2]

32. So correct me where I'm wrong

The blue slip rule currently requires that the two home-state Senator approve the nomination before it goes forward, correct?

And, rather than 1) Nominate a liberal judge and force the Republicans to reject it, or 2) Leave the position open, Obama chose to nominate a conservative to fill the position, correct?

[riqster]

40. If you would read some of the upthread responses, you'd know the facts.

Obama agreed to nominate this putz as a package deal to move a number of judicial nominations through the Senate. Some of those nominations moved, while this one sat.

Winner? Dems.

[Vattel]

134. Why do you think the dems are the winners?

The deal was a seven judge deal. Four of those seven are conservatives.

[sabrina 1]

105. Yes, he does. What a shame to have a leader that has to be told by his own

party that he is wrong about something as important as the judiciary.

What you are saying that Obama does not lead, he follows.

The very idea of nominating Boggs should never have occurred to a Democratic President.

This time we had enough Dems to stop that nomination. But other disastrous nominations HAVE been approved.

This is a serious issue that voters need to pay attention to before the next WH election. Who will be in the cabinet of a Dem president and who will they nominate for positions like this.

That nomination kind of blows the argument about elections and the judiciary doesn't it?

[riqster]

108. For crying out loud, learn some civics, and read some articles.

This was a blue slip nominee that was never going to be confirmed. But pretending he could be allowed Obama to fill other judicial vacancies.

Check the links elsewhere in this thread.

[sabrina 1]

111. "The president believes that Judge Boggs has the necessary qualifications to serve in this role,"

Maybe you should listen to the President to find out the facts as to why he nominated this disaster of a judge rather than listen to the inevitable attempts to try to justify one more awful nomination which this time, thankfully, appears to be about to fail.

Obama Supports Boggs Although Leahy Says He Lacks the Votes

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at Monday's daily press briefing that the president will not ask Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Michael Boggs to withdraw his nomination to the federal bench, despite the chairman of the U.S. Judiciary Committee signaling that his nomination is dead,according to the New York Times.

"The president believes that Judge Boggs has the necessary qualifications to serve in this role," Earnest said. "That's why the president nominated him."

Who should we believe? Anonymous posters on the internet or the WH Spokesperson?

This president still supports this nomination. We can only hope that Congress puts a stop to it.

[riqster]

115. Ah yes, the selective use of "literal interpretation".

When it suits people, the Prexy means exactly what he says, no exceptions.

But if it does not suit them, he is assumed to speak in elliptical code that disguises his true nefarious agenda.

[samsingh]

124. is he beholden to right wing fanatics?

[Enthusiast]

3. Kicked and recommended!

I am happy to hear this.

Thank you, n2doc.

[FlatStanley]

7. Why was he nominated in the first place?

[msanthrope]

12. Your lesson in civics and Senate Rules for today----Blue Slips.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024555117

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/03/senator-leahy-and-blue-slips

[FlatStanley]

41. Thank you for the links.

But this is more a lesson in the BS of "tradition". It is time to eliminate all undemocratic Senate rules.

[Recursion]

77. Why do politically-turned-on people not know about blue slips?

Seriously. We learned about them in high school.

[FlatStanley]

83. Bully for you. And they're still anti-democratic.

[Enrique]

19. not over yet

UPDATE: 1:55 p.m. -- White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said later that Obama will not urge Boggs to withdraw his nomination, despite Leahy saying the votes aren't there and it's time for him to throw in the towel.

"The president believes that Judge Boggs has the necessary qualifications to serve in this role," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "That's why the president nominated him."

[msanthrope]

21. Nah--let Boggs and Leahy twist. They both deserve it. Leahy has been avoiding this problem for

years, and it's about time he steps up and addresses it.

[n2doc]

22. Doesn't matter

If Boggs wants to sit around swinging in the wind and hoping that a republican-led Senate will approve him, he is free to do so. But so long as Democrats hold the senate, he is a non-starter. I have no idea why Obama is doing this.

On Edit- Apparently his nomination expires at the end of this year. So Obama would have to re-nominate him. I sincerely doubt the Senate will waste time on him now.

[still_one]

25. It is really unfortunate that the President appointed such a person

[msanthrope]

29. It's amazingly unfortunate you didn't read the thread. nt

[still_one]

33. Did YOU read it? "despite opposition from Democrats, President Obama is standing by his nominee"

Here is the full article. Please tell me which part I do not understand, and that you are able to read something that isn't between the lines?

"As First Draft reported this morning, Michael Boggs’s prospects of being confirmed to the federal bench in Georgia are not looking good.

But despite opposition from Democrats, President Obama is standing by his nominee.

Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said that “the president believes that Judge Boggs has the qualifications to serve in this role,” and that he would not ask him to withdraw.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, who leads the Judiciary Committee, told First Draft that it had become clear after talking to his colleagues that Judge Boggs, under fire from Democrats for his conservative positions, could not win committee support.

If Judge Boggs is not confirmed before his nomination expires at the end of the year, Mr. Obama will be placed in the awkward position of deciding whether to renominate him.

No word, at this point, on his plans to do so."

[Autumn]

35. I'll say this, he does stand by his republican nominees.

I would rather he stand on them though. With cleats on his shoes.

[OilemFirchen]

42. You would prefer that Boggs' name be withdrawn,

so that a slightly less insane judge, with an actual possibility of confirmation, can fill this position?

Those above - suggesting that Boggs hang in the wind - fully understand the ploy.

[Autumn]

43. I said I prefer Obama stand on a republicans head or chest with cleats on his shoes.

I thought that was clear.

[OilemFirchen]

55. You prefaced that by saying he "does stand by his republican nominees".

Misguided snark notwithstanding, I'm glad, in this case, hes is.

[Autumn]

56. One person snark is another persons snark, he does stand by the republicans that he has nominated

to his cabinet that's a fact. But I digress, I still prefer he stand on them rather than by them.

[still_one]

44. He should have never been nominated in the first place

[jeff47]

85. Sure....and then we also lose the 7 other nominees who are now on the bench

because he was nominated.

7 nominees go forward for this one to fail in committee sounds like a pretty damn good deal.

[Vattel]

98. I haven't followed this closely, but I think you are incorrect.

The Boggs nomination was part of a seven judge package deal for Georgia that included Boggs, three other republican nominees and only three democratic nominees.

[msanthrope]

122. See my reply 121...it is you who are incorrect, because you have framed this issue

as one personal to Obama rather than as filking the emptying judiciary.

[Vattel]

126. are those other six nominees going forward?

I would like to know

edited to add: I looked it up and they are all still nominees; so maybe they will all be appointed

[msanthrope]

131. Yes. nt

[still_one]

86. How are the 7 acceptable nominees related to the 1 bad nominee? We do have a majority in the

Senate now, if we lose the Senate and he tries that who does it help

[msanthrope]

100. Because, as I noted in another post, and in the links PROVIDED,

Senator Leahy made this a 7 judge horse deal.

[still_one]

112. was unaware of that, and did not see the post your referred to, which I will look for now. Thanks

[Vattel]

133. There are only six other nominees and three of those are also conservatives.

This was a 3 liberals for 4 conse4rvatives deal

[still_one]

135. Thanks for the perspective

[msanthrope]

69. Absolutely!! Boggs and Leahy and Chambliss should twist in the wind

until expiration, given the clusterfuck.

This is a Senate problem....and the Senate needs to unfuck itself.

[marble falls]

37. For whatever reason, no matter who sponsored this idiot, nice work cutting him off at the pass....

I would like to know how the Teapublicans would have voted on him.

[still_one]

45. I suspect they would have voted for him without hesitation. He represents everything they stand for

[marble falls]

47. If he really was one of the President's serious choices, its even money either way.

[still_one]

49. Maybe. Why would you assume it might not have been a serious choice by the President?

[marble falls]

58. How many hold ups are there for judgeships in federal courts? Alot. Maybe he was trying to ....

prove Teapublicans would not elect his candidate regardless of how abysmally tea-thug that candidate may be? Look at the grief they've given the President on hiring or holding Bush appointments. I'm glad we stopped one creep. Good for us.

[still_one]

61. I don't buy it with regard to the President. He doesn't play games. Don't misunderstand me, I

support the direction the President has done on most things, including the ACA, which despite what some say didn't have the votes for a public option or single payer among Democrats. In addition, he had a two year window to get it passed, so it was get something, or get nothing. However, this particular appointment was taking too much of a chance., and it follows what he has been trying to throughout his presidency, try and give an olive branch to the republicans. He was willing to put social security on the table for cost of living, which was another point I disagree with. There were republicans willing to compromise on that, however, enough Democrats weren't, and the republicans also ended up self-destructing, but I don't have the slightest doubt in my mind he was serious.

[Laelth]

50. Good. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Ka hrnt]

57. Now if he'd just dump Arne Duncan....

...his worst nomination yet. The man has been--at best--a disaster for public education.

[Chan790]

67. The worst? You sure? That's a mighty high bar.

Obama also nominated Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, a politically-dead Hillary Clinton (seriously, if he hadn't made her Sec. of State, she'd be 5.5 years into forced retirement and we wouldn't be talking about her as a prospective nominee in 2016)...hired Rahm Emanuel.

The President has plenty of "worst nominations" in the running.

[Fearless]

88. +1000!

[Erose999]

119. Agreed.

[2banon]

59. LOL! I misinterpreted the meaning of the OP Title, I'm figuring someone actually DIED.

Trying to figure out why an Obama nominee dying unexpectedly would be considered as funny or something to celebrate.

Now that I've read what the story is about, I sort of wish it were true.

[Jakes Progress]

63. That he did the nomination in the first place

is evidence of just how ineffectual he is at politics. He can run for office like nobody's business. He just can't do the business.

Yes, I know he was "forced" to do the deal. Seems to happen a lot.

[Recursion]

78. Bwah

Yeah, that's what happened.

[jeff47]

81. Yes, the 7 other nominees he got out of it was a terrible trade.

[Number23]

84. I swear if this thread doesn't beautifully illustrate how ODS affects the brain

I don't know what ever possibly could..

[msanthrope]

114. The amount of anger shown for support of the President, coupled with the

sheer ignorance of civics and politics, makes this a very quotable thread.

[Jakes Progress]

139. The amount of knee-jerk faith in support of the president, coupled with the

sheer ignorance of argument and disgust for a progressive agenda makes this a very typical thread.

[Vattel]

99. He didn't get seven other nominees from it

Boggs was one of the seven and four of those seven were republicans.

"I should be rolling my eyes about you to him."
--Elaine from Seinfeld

[msanthrope]

121. Yes....he did. Leahy structured a 7- judge deal. You are incorrectly

assuming that a "get" is a partisan choice, as opposed to filling a vacant judiciary.

[Vattel]

125. no jeff was incorrect.

He didn't get seven OTHER nominees out of it, as jeff claimed. He got six other nominees.

And as for the overall deal, it isn't obvious that four conservatives out of seven justices is better than nothing. Moreover, now that Bogg's nomination is going down the drain, isn't the rest of the deal going down the drain too so that Obama actually got nothing? I am not sure about that because I haven't been following the story closely.

edited to answer my own question: the other six nominees might get appointed; votes haven't been taken yet.

[msanthrope]

129. That's your fallback? Jeff was off by one? Oh, Vattel....Obama just forced up or down votes

on the remaining six, and if there was any spine in the farthest Left of the party, they would be organizing calling Congress on the remaining.

As for the rest of us....the supposed authoritarian Right wing and the suck up Center...well...we are kind of fucking exhausted. We've got voter regiatration deadlines in all states, voter protection efforts, ward meetings, and trying to get enough drivers to take people to the polls.

As an added benefit this year, I was just asked this morning what a poll worker should do if someone shows up armed. I shit you not. I just called an LEO friend of mine to find out the law in my usual haunting grounds...the 14thbward in Philly. Google that for shits and giggles.

[Vattel]

132. fall back? i haven't said anything incorrect yet

[L0oniX]

65. Now if we could just get rid of that fuck Wheeler ...another Obama fuck up.

[blkmusclmachine]

87. We do have to keep an eye on the White House. And occasionally fight back.

[msanthrope]

101. Why would we blame the White House for Senate Rules? nt

[Egnever]

93. I love threads like these

there is something utterly fascinating about watching people completely unwilling to understand politics on a political board in spite of multiple attempts to lay it out for them.

[msanthrope]

102. ODS must be stopped in our lifetime. nt

[davidpdx]

96. Good to hear the nomination is not going through

I've signed some petitions and voiced my opinion about Boggs being a nominee.

[Eric J in MN]

104. The White House says it's not giving up.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said later that Obama will not urge Boggs to withdraw his nomination, despite Leahy saying the votes aren't there and it's time for him to throw in the towel.

"The president believes that Judge Boggs has the necessary qualifications to serve in this role," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "That's why the president nominated him."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/obama-michael-boggs_n_5860730.html

[BumRushDaShow]

109. See the response to Post # 19. nt

[davidpdx]

137. That's their propagative to do so

but I would bet you that Boggs will step aside knowing that a protracted fight isn't going to go anywhere. Obama technically becomes a lame duck the day after the mid-term election. Unless we suddenly sweep seats in the Senate and get a bunch of more bluedogs, the Senate will let the nomination die.

[samsingh]

123. why would Obama even nominate such a bad candidate ?

[TheNutcracker]

127. Why does he like fossil fuel so much and fracking?

[Vattel]

128. According to the WH, Obama thinks he is a good candidate.

Of course, Obama may be lying. Hard to tell.

[msanthrope]

130. Why would you post without reading the thread??? nt