Discussion for article #227934
Good.
3 Likes
I called this at the time: the deal only required the President to nominate, and the Senate to consider, the two questionable nominees. It didn’t say anything about approving them.
5 Likes
Good News, yet I’m surprised Reid & Co. showed some backbone. Now Obama should nominate whomever he wants and Leahy should end the soft filibuster (Blue Slips).
3 Likes
“In an extremely rare move, Senate Democrats have scuttled a judicial nominee selected by President Barack Obama”
Another not so rare instance of a misleading article by Sahil Kapur and TPM aimed at the low information click and bait crowd. The nominee was made in a compromise deal, by senators of a red state, common in the nomination process.
“Boggs, a state judge, was formally nominated by Obama in January as part of a deal with Georgia’s senators to overcome the blue slip problem. a procedural tool that the Republican used to block a judicial nominee to that seat.”
Now this statement is an out right lie, in the face of numerous compromises where Dems did the same thing with GOP presidents. Sahil can’t or won’t get it right and has little or no supervision here. Everything is click and bait with no respect to content. @Sahil
2 Likes
Obama’s “bog standard” nominee.
1 Like
WTF Obama, you couldn’t see this one headed your way?
Good move Harry.
I’m no fans of Boggs as a US District Court judge. But the timing doesn’t help Michelle Nunn, who in my opinion this morning still had a one in four chance of winning.
ole harry must have taken a double dose of geritol that day…and maybe an extra helpin of wheaties
Why in the world would Obama agree to nominate a far right judge in the first place. it goes against all common sense to help increase far right judges. It’s time Obama stands up to these Republican thuds. One of the main reasons voters have lost a little confidence in Obama’s leadership is because of his lack of confronting these GOP nuts. Hopefully after the elections, and in his last two years in office he finally takes of the gloves and starts hitting these Republican clowns with his bare hands.
Great pun, but no, not really. Boggs stands out as quite a departure from most of Obama’s judicial nominees.
You just don’t see stories about most of Obama’s nominees, because they are liberal and center-left judges, and their appointments are dog-bites-man stories, while Boggs is enough of a departure to warrant press coverage.
Of course he saw it headed his way. Boggs was only nominated as a Republican “get” in a deal that resulted in the approval of 7 liberal nominees.
The deal in question required the President to nominate, and the Senate to consider, Boggs and one other conservadem nominee. It didn’t say anything about them winning approval.
Do you really think the President’s team didn’t know what it was signing onto?
5 Likes
This story really could have used some explanation of the backstory.
Obama nominated Boggs, and one other judge whose name escapes me, as part of a deal that got 7 liberal judicial nominees approved.
I’d take a 7:2 ratio over obstruction - but we’re not going to have to. The deal required Obama to nominate and the Senate to consider the two nominees. It didn’t require them to be approved.
Always read the fine print, especially when dealing with a time-travelling Kenyan.
3 Likes
This is slightly O/T—but it’s illuminating and somewhat humorous.
2 Likes
The article notes that the pick was “part of a deal” – the “rare move” is that the leadership of his own party knocked the confirmation down. It is not “rare” that there is a compromise pick.
Where is the “out right lie”? Did they say ONLY Republicans used procedural moves to block nominees?
Again, it is notably atypical for Democrats to block Democratic nominations here, including as part of deals. This is not just any nominee but the article mentions that. So, your comment is overblown hyperbole.
A bit MORE backstory could be useful but the article does note he was a result of a deal and provides a link to a story that gives more detail on the problem the deal was addressing. A bit of thought, I think, would tell a reader that it was something of a compromise pick & not simply someone Obama chosen himself. Some don’t think and take potshots at Obama, but that’s going to happen any time, esp. by readers quickly skimming blogs.
Joe that is bullshit. Your backstory reliance seems to be begging the issue. I gave my opinion and you are entitled to yours. Confusing the issues to defend the poorly written article will not change my mind. Spare me a response and use your time usefully, skimming blogs.
In other words it was a hatched job and political hit piece requiring a complete rewrite to qualify as journalist news.
Great excuse for ordinary journalism. Tell Bob and the other posters here that TPM holds no responsibility for clarity in the articles given the skimming practices of the readers.
Ya know, they have medication now that helps with OCD –