General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHooray! A (Bad) Presidential Nomination Is Dead
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 doesnt 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
(17,796 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)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¤t_page=1#bookmark
riqster
(13,986 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)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
(13,986 posts)Have you followed the history of this nomination, and the politics involved?
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)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
(37,549 posts)Cha
(296,771 posts)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
(37,549 posts)Politics is like sausage....you don't want to see it being made. H
riqster
(13,986 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)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
(37,549 posts)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
(92,060 posts)President should be criticized for, and to make excuses does a disservice to him
BumRushDaShow
(128,372 posts)still_one
(92,060 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,372 posts)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
(296,771 posts)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
(32,000 posts)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
(11,122 posts)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.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)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
(62,325 posts)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
(32,139 posts)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
(37,549 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It establishes patterns of behavior, reveals credibility or lack thereof, and helps in determining agenda.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)at least say what you mean, plainly?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)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
(37,549 posts)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
(24,544 posts)Positive thread? Seriously MIA
Thread full of criticism, and doom and gloom no matter how ill informed? "....there you are!"
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the Republicans through their ignorance.....seriously....the lack of knowledge of basic Senate rules is embarrassing.
TBF
(32,000 posts)post to point to?
Cha
(296,771 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)At least you are consistent.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)You can see it here every day.
I am stunned daily by how many here cant read past a headline.
flpoljunkie
(26,184 posts)it might be preferable to keep the seats vacant--if Isakson and Chambliss are the ones making the picks!
Without Isaksons and Chambliss blessing, the judicial nominees in Georgia would simply go vacant despite last years 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
(45,984 posts)I am conversant in civics, but I'm inexplicably cranky this morning.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)into a 7 judge deal.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)against abortion. That's unDemocratic.
still_one
(92,060 posts)Cost of living on the table, because it is bad policy
This 3 D chess is bullshit
Aerows
(39,961 posts)any damn move in the universe necessary to prevent that from happening is a good thing.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I dunno, did you have 8th grade Civics where you learned about things like blue slips?
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)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
(15,429 posts)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
(45,984 posts)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
(15,429 posts)By the time I took Civics in 1978, it was more commonly used to block nominees.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Mine did. And every President in my lifetime has done judge swaps.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)progressoid
(49,932 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)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
(13,986 posts)Thanks for your posts.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'll probably be alerted on for my snarkiness, or some such shit.
riqster
(13,986 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Seriously, I do apologize. Looking at the name, I feel a proper Eedjit.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)on this board.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)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
(5,213 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Learn some civics.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)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
(13,986 posts)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
(9,289 posts)The deal was a seven judge deal. Four of those seven are conservatives.
Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #26)
LittleBlue This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to riqster (Reply #2)
demwing This message was self-deleted by its author.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(13,986 posts)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
(62,325 posts)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.
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
(13,986 posts)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
(17,590 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I am happy to hear this.
Thank you, n2doc.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)FlatStanley
(327 posts)But this is more a lesson in the BS of "tradition". It is time to eliminate all undemocratic Senate rules.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously. We learned about them in high school.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)"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
(37,549 posts)years, and it's about time he steps up and addresses it.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)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
(92,060 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)still_one
(92,060 posts)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 Boggss 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
(44,972 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)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
(44,972 posts)I thought that was clear.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Misguided snark notwithstanding, I'm glad, in this case, hes is.
Autumn
(44,972 posts)to his cabinet that's a fact. But I digress, I still prefer he stand on them rather than by them.
still_one
(92,060 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)because he was nominated.
7 nominees go forward for this one to fail in committee sounds like a pretty damn good deal.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)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
(37,549 posts)as one personal to Obama rather than as filking the emptying judiciary.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)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
(37,549 posts)still_one
(92,060 posts)Senate now, if we lose the Senate and he tries that who does it help
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Senator Leahy made this a 7 judge horse deal.
still_one
(92,060 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)This was a 3 liberals for 4 conse4rvatives deal
still_one
(92,060 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)until expiration, given the clusterfuck.
This is a Senate problem....and the Senate needs to unfuck itself.
marble falls
(56,994 posts)I would like to know how the Teapublicans would have voted on him.
still_one
(92,060 posts)marble falls
(56,994 posts)still_one
(92,060 posts)marble falls
(56,994 posts)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
(92,060 posts)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
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Ka hrnt
(308 posts)...his worst nomination yet. The man has been--at best--a disaster for public education.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)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.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)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
(11,122 posts)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
(56,582 posts)Yeah, that's what happened.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)I don't know what ever possibly could..
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sheer ignorance of civics and politics, makes this a very quotable thread.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)sheer ignorance of argument and disgust for a progressive agenda makes this a very typical thread.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)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
(37,549 posts)assuming that a "get" is a partisan choice, as opposed to filling a vacant judiciary.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)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
(37,549 posts)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
(9,289 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)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
(37,549 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I've signed some petitions and voiced my opinion about Boggs being a nominee.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)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
(128,372 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)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
(17,590 posts)TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Of course, Obama may be lying. Hard to tell.