Discussion: Senators Grill Obama Nominee Michael Boggs Who's Opposed By Left

Discussion for article #222691

I have never understood why any kind of support for the Confederate Flag is not considered to be anti-American.

5 Likes

me either. It will be very interesting to follow the questioning and voting on this particular appointee. I can be a strong supporter of the President (as can Democratic senators) and still have serious reservations about an appointment.

Another bad deal made by President Obama. The GOP never keep their word. One would think An intelligent man would have learned thit lesson by now.

3 Likes

Dump the Boggs. Even just one dumb vote for a confederate flag to be flown it Georgia government building disqualifies the man . . .

1 Like

Yes, that plus his antagonism to abortion rights and LGBT rights seems to me to recommend against his confirmation. There are already too many people with those views in the federal judiciary.

1 Like

Were there any questions asked or concerns expressed about his 10-year record as a judge (2004-14)?

He sounded a lot like Roberts and Alito during their confirmation hearings. I think we know how well they kept their “pledges of integrity.”

How Obama could nominte this guy and the drone killer is beyond me. Unless Obama isn’t who/what we thought he was back in 2008? That couldn’t be, could it? (/snark)

…saying it was a “terribly agonizing” decision to choose between his own conscience and the will of his constituents, whom he suggested wanted to keep the Confederate-linked flag.

Oh, I must have had the wrong idea about judges. I thought that they were supposed to be independent, not being elected but rather appointed, and were therefore without a mandate to accommodate the “will of the people”. Majority rules! Scoreboard, people!

Hey, dickhead! If you don’t want to be called a racist don’t support the American swastika! Too complicated? Then get a job greasing truck parts.

The whole subject of the Civil War is something I looked into past few days,and I think it is deliberately muddied: so that we can somehow live side by side. And yes deliberately, such that battlefields are “hallowed ground” and not the “defense against treason and barbarism.” Gettysburg was an important battle but not because of the “hallowed” sacrifices but because the Union delivered an unaffordable defeat to the resource-starved rebels. Lincoln rubbed it in with his Gettysburg Address and the twin scourges of slavery and insurrection were a bit closer to be excised.

I had been to the Gettysburg Battlefield 3 times in my youth and managed to miss the above main points amid the fog of war memorabilia, battlefield minutiae, and misty glorification.

And you do make a very good point.

I don’t want quid pro quo for a deal that leads to more bad legislation from these reactionaries. What could be worth it?