Discussion: Obama Judicial Nominee Vowed To Oppose Gay Boy Scout Leaders

TPM Article Topics
22

The problem is not his seat, it’s that part of the deal includes six other district judges as well as two seats on the 11th Circuit. Having those filled before November, especially the appeals court positions, are more important than one district court seat.

4 Likes
23

  1. There is no indication that his views have changed since 2000 and every indication that they have not.

  2. I’m willing to bet he didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012.

  3. I’d love to have three decent judges installed, too. This guy doesn’t fit that bill. No way, no how, no Boggs.

1 Like
24

Not that it was less despicable, but he wasn’t governor then; he was the state’s attorney general. But the point is a good one. An even better example would be Hugo Black.

The question is: what evidence is there that this guy has become more like Warren and Black than like James McReynolds?

25

Anyone who would insist on a nominee as vile as Boggs CANNOT be counted on to reciprocate. I guarantee that if Boggs goes through, the senators in question will renege on the deal.

27

As soon as this bigot provides some indication of his utter remorse for his hatred, I’ll listen attentively. Until then, raw deal or not, fuck him. He offers nothing but a raw deal to those he hates, and doesn’t belong in a position that can so directly affect their lives. No fucking way.

28

IANAL, but I do study my history. You’ve got a good point about Earl Warren – and similar to Boggs, there was nothing in Warren’s record to indicate his best days were ahead of him, except that Warren appealed to both Republicans and Democrats in California.

Boggs, by contrast, wouldn’t be supported by anyone we’d identify as a Democrat.

And if Boggs is the price to get two Circuit Court seats filled with reasonable judges, I guess I can hold my nose.

29

It’s refreshing (and rare) to see a Democrat stand by their principles than yielding to which way the wind is blowing.

30

Go and read his testimony. He is expressing remorse, and doing so in ways that will surely cost him the vote of every Republican in the Senate.

31

  1. His testimony before the Senate indicates remorse and a change of heart on some important points. You can believe him or not, but bear in mind that his testimony is costing him the votes of every Republican in the Senate at a time when his ability to get Democratic votes is very much in danger.

  2. You do not know who he voted for and you can’t find out. You’re letting your pre-existing opinions generate unverifiable “facts” that just happen to confirm your pre-existing opinions. That’s what Fox-toxxed crazy uncles do. I know you’re better than that because, well, I kind of tend to pay attention to other posters with “NC” in their names.

  3. This guy’s nomination to the district court was the price Obama paid to get blue slips lifted on four, count 'em four, other judges of his choosing, including–and this is really important–two appointments to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 11th Circuit is the second most conservative district in the nation. It’s packed with Reagan and Bush II appointees. And one of the reason it is packed is because Republicans stalled Clinton appointees for more than two years, trying to hold seats open for the next election.

Accepting one sub-optimal Democrat as a trial judge in a deep Red state is a small price to pay for our last chance to finally get some real damn Democrats onto the goddamned 11th Circuit and the the right-most Democrat in Alabama is a damn sight better than the left-most Republican in that state.

2 Likes
32

Homophobia can be treated by coming out and being gay, sir.

34

I would agree with you, but it would not be just one position, but all open federal judgeships in the state.

I would like to think that President Obama agreed to nominate this guy, (so he could get his other 2 (or 3) nominations through) knowing that the democrats in the senate would not approve him.

If I understand/remember correctly, President Obama agreed to nominate him, along with the other judges. But there was no agreement that he would be approved.

I am not really sure I understand what the big deal is. President Obama nominated him because the blue slip rule has not been rescinded by the judicial committee (this is an informal rule so they can do away with it at any time). Given the choice of no judges, or nominating this guy, along with 2 or 3 acceptable judges, then leave it up to the senate to confirm.

Just don’t confirm Boggs, and we can all move on. Maybe it is being dragged out so that more damaging information can come out, and any democrats who were on the fence now have enough information to vote down the nomination.

Of coarse, knowing the republicans. If he is not approved, they will try to block any nomination from moving out of the judicial committee . . .

PS Reid is not the one upholding the blue slip rule. That is in committee. But I agree with you, it is time to lose the rule.

35

  1. Show me where I claimed to KNOW who he voted for. You can’t because I didn’t. But I will gladly take that bet.

  2. You will never convince me that this guy should be appointed to a lifetime judgeship by a Democratic president. There is NO justification for doing so.

  3. He doesn’t need the votes of Republicans to get an appiontment, only Democrats. So, losing GOP votes is no big deal. He’s not sorry for his stances – just sorry they’re coming back to haunt him.

  4. If Obama breaks his promise to the GOP, big yawn. What are they gonna do – block his initiatives and not work with him?