General Discussion

Cha

(317,834 posts)

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

Reply to msanthrope (Reply #71)

Tue Sep 23, 2014, 01:09 AM

Sep 2014

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hooray! A (Bad) Presidential Nomination Is Dead [View all] n2doc Sep 2014 OP

Kick.... daleanime Sep 2014 #1

Obama=Bush billhicks76 Sep 2014 #95

Now Obama can say, "sorry guys, I tried". And we can get a better nominee. riqster Sep 2014 #2

To whom is he supposed to say "Sorry, guys, I tried"? Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #4

The two senators from the state in question. riqster Sep 2014 #6

No, as a matter of fact, I haven't Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #8

This is a Senate Blue Slips problem---there's a whole history here.... msanthrope Sep 2014 #9

thank you for this, msanthrope.. I knew there would be knee jerk reactions. But, I was aware Cha Sep 2014 #90

You are quite welcome, and I thank you for your defense and kind words. msanthrope Sep 2014 #103

Try googling "blue slip". Ideally, before you post. riqster Sep 2014 #11

I mean Jesus, right? nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #13

The Right, sad to say, does not have a monopoly on knee-jerk reactions. riqster Sep 2014 #16

Yeah...you should have seen some of my posts during the DADT wars. That's when I realized that the msanthrope Sep 2014 #20

and it seems you are an apologist for every the President does. Sometimes there are things that the still_one Sep 2014 #34

The sheer lack of knowledge of Civics on DU is the problem. nt BumRushDaShow Sep 2014 #39

Not sure your point, but are you suggesting this was a good nomination by the president? still_one Sep 2014 #46

No. BumRushDaShow Sep 2014 #62

No, msanthrope is not an "apologist" for everything the President does.. yes there are times Cha Sep 2014 #91

Right on track with an insult to the far left - TBF Sep 2014 #52

Maybe it's just "the left". Jakes Progress Sep 2014 #64

+1 NealK Sep 2014 #66

You are talking to an attorney who works voter protection msanthrope Sep 2014 #72

And do you think that you are the only person here who is 'conversant in Senate rules'? sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #106

No, no. woo me with science Sep 2014 #110

Oh, woo....there you are! nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #113

The record of behavior is always important. woo me with science Sep 2014 #116

Oh woo...why not alert on my posts, report me to admin, or msanthrope Sep 2014 #117

What's unclear? woo me with science Sep 2014 #118

You are unclear. This is a partisan, Democratic website, and yet, you msanthrope Sep 2014 #120

Like clockwork! Number23 Sep 2014 #136

The Far Left should be insulted when they carry water for msanthrope Sep 2014 #71

Are you just insulting folks in general or do you have a specific TBF Sep 2014 #82

Mahalo, msanthrope.. I really appreciate your knowledge of this whole Boggs fiasco. :( Cha Sep 2014 #92

You sure do hate those lefties, eh? Jakes Progress Sep 2014 #138

No they dont Egnever Sep 2014 #79

Apparently, they have not. Here's why Obama nominated him, though one can make a good argument flpoljunkie Sep 2014 #24

Thank you Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #28

Keeping this seat vacant would have kept more vacant--since Leahy worked this msanthrope Sep 2014 #30

Obama shouldn't have been pushing someone who was in favor of the Confederate flag and was Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #53

Appreciate the explanation. Is this the excuse used when the President put social security still_one Sep 2014 #73

Lord have mercy if Saxby Chambliss wants someone Aerows Sep 2014 #80

The two Senators from Georgia, maybe? MohRokTah Sep 2014 #38

I had an eighth grade civics where I memorized the Constitution Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #48

It's called "senatorial courtesy". MohRokTah Sep 2014 #51

In any case, it wasn't part of the curriculum in 1966 Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #54

Yes, Civics probably ignored it back then as a simple procedural nicety. MohRokTah Sep 2014 #60

Do the Democrats use that rule? Or just the obstructionist Repubs? nm rhett o rick Sep 2014 #68

The Democrats used it, though Orrin Hatch suspended it under Bush. eom MohRokTah Sep 2014 #70

Yes, Democrats have used it (nt) Recursion Sep 2014 #89

They've had them since 1789. Why didn't your civics class mention them? Recursion Sep 2014 #76

The two Senators who were blocking all other nominees until this guy got a vote (nt) Recursion Sep 2014 #74

^^^this^^^ progressoid Sep 2014 #107

Secret nth-degree chessmaster's move! Amonester Sep 2014 #5

No--it's a Senate Blue Slips problem, which someone who is conversant in civics is well aware of.... msanthrope Sep 2014 #10

Amazing how many people are so ignorant when it comes to civics, innit? riqster Sep 2014 #14

Ignorance and ODS are a powerful combo. You are welcome. Of course, msanthrope Sep 2014 #15

Away wi' yer facts, laddie! We'll nae be havin' such here! riqster Sep 2014 #17

A um nay laddie! See me username! nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #18

Och aye, me apologies! 'Twas an error on mai paurt. riqster Sep 2014 #23

Not a problem. Being taken for a male is the least offensive thing I'm accused of msanthrope Sep 2014 #31

Thanks. riqster Sep 2014 #36

Ummm... not terribly secret, or nth-dimensional. Recursion Sep 2014 #75

Lamest. Rationalization. Ever. LondonReign2 Sep 2014 #26

Bollocks. The Blue Slip ties his hands, tighter than a filibuster. riqster Sep 2014 #27

So correct me where I'm wrong LondonReign2 Sep 2014 #32

If you would read some of the upthread responses, you'd know the facts. riqster Sep 2014 #40

Why do you think the dems are the winners? Vattel Sep 2014 #134

This message was self-deleted by its author LittleBlue Sep 2014 #94

This message was self-deleted by its author demwing Sep 2014 #97

Yes, he does. What a shame to have a leader that has to be told by his own sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #105

For crying out loud, learn some civics, and read some articles. riqster Sep 2014 #108

"The president believes that Judge Boggs has the necessary qualifications to serve in this role," sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #111

Ah yes, the selective use of "literal interpretation". riqster Sep 2014 #115

is he beholden to right wing fanatics? samsingh Sep 2014 #124

Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Sep 2014 #3

Why was he nominated in the first place? FlatStanley Sep 2014 #7

Your lesson in civics and Senate Rules for today----Blue Slips..... msanthrope Sep 2014 #12

Thank you for the links. FlatStanley Sep 2014 #41

Why do politically-turned-on people not know about blue slips? Recursion Sep 2014 #77

Bully for you. And they're still anti-democratic. FlatStanley Sep 2014 #83

not over yet Enrique Sep 2014 #19

Nah--let Boggs and Leahy twist. They both deserve it. Leahy has been avoiding this problem for msanthrope Sep 2014 #21

Doesn't matter n2doc Sep 2014 #22

It is really unfortunate that the President appointed such a person still_one Sep 2014 #25

It's amazingly unfortunate you didn't read the thread. nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #29

Did YOU read it? "despite opposition from Democrats, President Obama is standing by his nominee" still_one Sep 2014 #33

I'll say this, he does stand by his republican nominees. Autumn Sep 2014 #35

You would prefer that Boggs' name be withdrawn, OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #42

I said I prefer Obama stand on a republicans head or chest with cleats on his shoes. Autumn Sep 2014 #43

You prefaced that by saying he "does stand by his republican nominees". OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #55

One person snark is another persons snark, he does stand by the republicans that he has nominated Autumn Sep 2014 #56

He should have never been nominated in the first place still_one Sep 2014 #44

Sure....and then we also lose the 7 other nominees who are now on the bench jeff47 Sep 2014 #85

I haven't followed this closely, but I think you are incorrect. Vattel Sep 2014 #98

See my reply 121...it is you who are incorrect, because you have framed this issue msanthrope Sep 2014 #122

are those other six nominees going forward? Vattel Sep 2014 #126

Yes. nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #131

How are the 7 acceptable nominees related to the 1 bad nominee? We do have a majority in the still_one Sep 2014 #86

Because, as I noted in another post, and in the links PROVIDED, msanthrope Sep 2014 #100

was unaware of that, and did not see the post your referred to, which I will look for now. Thanks still_one Sep 2014 #112

There are only six other nominees and three of those are also conservatives. Vattel Sep 2014 #133

Thanks for the perspective still_one Sep 2014 #135

Absolutely!! Boggs and Leahy and Chambliss should twist in the wind msanthrope Sep 2014 #69

For whatever reason, no matter who sponsored this idiot, nice work cutting him off at the pass.... marble falls Sep 2014 #37

I suspect they would have voted for him without hesitation. He represents everything they stand for still_one Sep 2014 #45

If he really was one of the President's serious choices, its even money either way. marble falls Sep 2014 #47

Maybe. Why would you assume it might not have been a serious choice by the President? still_one Sep 2014 #49

How many hold ups are there for judgeships in federal courts? Alot. Maybe he was trying to .... marble falls Sep 2014 #58

I don't buy it with regard to the President. He doesn't play games. Don't misunderstand me, I still_one Sep 2014 #61

Good. k&r n/t Laelth Sep 2014 #50

Now if he'd just dump Arne Duncan.... Ka hrnt Sep 2014 #57

The worst? You sure? That's a mighty high bar. Chan790 Sep 2014 #67

+1000! Fearless Sep 2014 #88

Agreed. Erose999 Sep 2014 #119

LOL! I misinterpreted the meaning of the OP Title, I'm figuring someone actually DIED. 2banon Sep 2014 #59

That he did the nomination in the first place Jakes Progress Sep 2014 #63

Bwah Recursion Sep 2014 #78

Yes, the 7 other nominees he got out of it was a terrible trade. jeff47 Sep 2014 #81

I swear if this thread doesn't beautifully illustrate how ODS affects the brain Number23 Sep 2014 #84

The amount of anger shown for support of the President, coupled with the msanthrope Sep 2014 #114

The amount of knee-jerk faith in support of the president, coupled with the Jakes Progress Sep 2014 #139

He didn't get seven other nominees from it Vattel Sep 2014 #99

Yes....he did. Leahy structured a 7- judge deal. You are incorrectly msanthrope Sep 2014 #121

no jeff was incorrect. Vattel Sep 2014 #125

That's your fallback? Jeff was off by one? Oh, Vattel....Obama just forced up or down votes msanthrope Sep 2014 #129

fall back? i haven't said anything incorrect yet Vattel Sep 2014 #132

Now if we could just get rid of that fuck Wheeler ...another Obama fuck up. L0oniX Sep 2014 #65

We do have to keep an eye on the White House. And occasionally fight back. blkmusclmachine Sep 2014 #87

Why would we blame the White House for Senate Rules? nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #101

I love threads like these Egnever Sep 2014 #93

ODS must be stopped in our lifetime. nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #102

Good to hear the nomination is not going through davidpdx Sep 2014 #96

The White House says it's not giving up. Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #104

See the response to Post # 19. nt BumRushDaShow Sep 2014 #109

That's their propagative to do so davidpdx Sep 2014 #137

why would Obama even nominate such a bad candidate ? samsingh Sep 2014 #123

Why does he like fossil fuel so much and fracking? TheNutcracker Sep 2014 #127

According to the WH, Obama thinks he is a good candidate. Vattel Sep 2014 #128

Why would you post without reading the thread??? nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #130