Discussion for article #222832
I think it is important to note that President Obama nominated this guy because of the Blue Slip Rule that requires both senators from a state to approve of judicial nominations for the state.
Of the Judiciary committee got rid of the rule, this nomination probably would not have been made.
In effect, President Obama had to nominate this guy because the 2 senators from his state would not let any other judges be nominated until a judge of their choosing was also nominated.
I am pretty sure if the Blue Slip rule was not in place, and he was not forced to make this nomination (or appoint no judges to the bench in that state) Mr. Boggs would not have been nominated.
9 Likes
That’s interesting, and information I haven’t seen in one single story about this nomination yet. Because up until now I was having a real struggle trying to square the circle on this nomination compared to so many of his other ones. Now things make more sense.
Thank you.
TPM - take note of this, huh? (Edit: wait, what am I saying…this is a Sahil Kapur story. No wonder it didn’t include all of the information!)
5 Likes
I would only correct you on the small point that instead of saying “until a judge of their choosing was also nominated” you should have said “until a judge who meets their approval was nominated.” Obama still has to choose them so no judge who doesn’t get past Obama will be nominated. It is a distinction without a difference though.
1 Like
Yes, just as there are Democrats who hate blacks. However, this man seems more like a wolf in sheep’s clothes.
All right. Enough of this nonsense.
Get rid of this guy. His type is the last thing we need appointed to the bench - a lifetime position. We have more than enough of his ilk as it is.
Not just more Democrats - we want better Democrats!
5 Likes
Makes you wonder who’s leaking these “revelations” to the press… 
1 Like
He did what! He vowed to oppose gay Boy Scout Leaders? No he didn’t! Say it ain’t so! The horror! The horror!
1 Like
Yep they are called Republicans.
1 Like
I’m sure that the same rationale would make it equally acceptable if the nominee opposed interracial marriage. [/sarcasm]
1 Like
Mike Boggs: A ConservativeDemocratDemagogue withConservativeConfederate Values.
Truth in advertising.
9 Likes
Still, too liberal for the GOP!
1 Like
Fuck him.
2 Likes
Running for Congress is one thing – highly distasteful but not a disaster, and holding the majority does count for a lot. However, sitting as a judge is entirely another – and blue slip or no, this guy should NEVER be seated on the bench.
We don’t have sharia law in this country, and the notion that Obama would nominate this guy just because he can’t get miscreant Georgia Senators to approve of anyone who isn’t a Christo-fascist is appalling.
4 Likes
Sorry buddy, that’s a DQ.
I don’t care. I’d rather the seat stay vacant than have this bigot installed for life. Also, if Reid can ignore the filibuster, he can ignore the blue slip rule. It’s not as if the GOP is standing by traditional rules of comity and fairness.
2 Likes
Mr. Boggs’ campaign flyer is for a 2000 election to the Georgia Legislature. His positions seemed favorable to the majority of his district’s voters since they elected him.
Some considerations:
A) When these present “Democratic Senate leaders” (DSLs) 1) first won elective office, they also favored the majority opinion of their own districts’ voters; 2) did these DSLs likewise do what they had promised? 3) first ran for the US Senate, they shaded/modifyed/ignored their own prior opinions in successful appeal to their entire states’ electorate: much more numerous, and diverse in regionality, occupation, culture, values and concerns.
B) Which states do these “several” DSLs opposing Judge Bogg’s nomination represent? Do most voters of these states express the same values and concerns with most Georgia voters on the issues raised in this article or do they differ?
C) What opinions about same-sex marriages and homosexual Boy Scout leaders did these several opposing DSLs hold in 2000, and in what year did they change their opinion?
D) What year did President Obama change his opinion regarding same-sex marriage? What about us in this thread?
E) Do these several DSLs object to any legal opinions Judge Boggs expressed as a Georgia state judge since 2004? Were such objections to judicial opinions made at his confirmation hearing? I’m not aware that TPM has reported any.
It’s becoming a cliched truism, but “you nominate to the federal bench the Georgia judges you have, not the Georgia judges you wish to have had.”
Frankly, I think it would be less damaging to leave those Georgia benches vacant rather than filling them with this sort of tool. It’s not a huge stretch at this point to believe the D-candidate will win again in 2016. That keeps this sort of creep off the bench at least to 2020.
On the other hand, Reid could just decide to ignore the unwritten blue-slip custom. I’m not sure where that would end up, because the Ds in the Senate might just want to preserve that little perq.
I am aware that justice delayed is justice denied, but this a$$hat will deny justice flat-out.
1 Like
It’s true! As recently as 2000! That’s what makes it super-awful, because it’s not like the entire country has gone through any kind of amazing transformation on gay rights issues over the last six years.
Guys, as a lawyer, I need to say I think this guy is getting a raw deal. I just want to remind y’all of something. Earl Warren, the author of Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda v. Arizona, was, as governor of California, the driving force in the World War II internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. At the time, his comments regarding the supposed necessity were savagely racist. In later years, it ate at his conscience.
Listen to what this guy is saying about all this stuff that’s getting dredged up because his answers are the right ones and they are neither hedged nor evasive. And understand too that the way things look when you’re a politician in a conservative state (as California once was, believe it or not) and a federal judge with life time tenure are often quite different.
He’s not necessarily who I would have chosen given the choice, but I don’t think he’s an ogre and I can well accept him as the price of getting three decent judges on the bench.
And another thing: if the last ten years haven’t managed to get it through your heads that, under present circumstances, any Democrat who gets a judicial appointment will be vastly better than any Republican who might get it, I don’t know what will. The idea of leaving these seats open in the expectation that the Kochs can’t buy 2016 is madness.
4 Likes