Obama Sparks All-Out Revolt Over Socially Conservative Judicial Nominee

[NorthCarolina]

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has now infuriated abortion rights advocates, civil rights leaders and Democratic lawmakers in his push to confirm a Georgia judicial nominee they argue is too socially conservative.

NARAL Pro-Choice America announced Wednesday that it is launching a new campaign to defeat Georgia state Judge Michael Boggs, whom Obama nominated in December to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The group is alarmed by votes that Boggs took -- as a state legislator in the early 2000s -- to "channel funds to anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers and make a parental consent law even more extreme," according a petition emailed to NARAL supporters.

"We’re disappointed that pro-choice President Obama nominated someone who doesn’t share our pro-choice values. We agree with the president on a lot of things, but not this pick," reads the email. "Speak out now and call on your senators to oppose a nominee who can’t be trusted with our rights."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/michael-boggs-opposition_n_4775150.html

I guess the old argument about "who would you rather have making judicial appointments" doesn't carry water anymore.

[SamKnause]

1. Exactly.

[Scuba]

2. The usual suspects will soon be along to defend this appointment. Right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. And as a "usual suspect" ...

I think it reasonable to point out that judicial nominees are traditional selected from a list of candidates advanced by the Senators of the state. It's been that way for the past couple of decades, regardless of the party of the President.

Besides, the deal that led to this nominee gained 4 appointments to the judiciary of nominees that were unlikely to sail through.

But apparently we must re-litigate this every couple of weeks ... as the "usual suspects" continue to raise the issue.

[Scuba]

5. I seem to recall a Republican President rejecting judicial nominees over ideology.

Is that no longer allowed?


http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2007/bush-rejects-bi-partisan-senate-effort-in-order-to-reignite-judicial-nomination-wars

SEPTEMBER 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Yesterday, President Bush rejected a bipartisan list of five names that Virginia Senators Jim Webb (D) and John Warner (R) recommended for two 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacancies from Virginia.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Yes, it is still allowed ...

but that doesn't negate tradition, nor does it negate the 4 appointees (of the 4 for 1 deal), that apparently no one has problems with.

[Scuba]

7. So nominating bigots is OK, as long as it honors some sense of "tradition". Cool.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. I didn't say that ...

And you know it.

But from reading the article, I learned it wasn't a 4 for 1 deal; but a 6 for 1 deal. I think that's relevant ... but what is more relevant, those involved in this "All-out revolt" seem to be far less out-raged about this nominee than the DU "as usual suspects."

[dsc]

12. except 4 of the 6 were picked by the gop senators

this is not a great deal to say the least. Obama doesn't deserve all, or even the majority of, the blame here but this is a pretty awful deal.

[Jakes Progress]

13. Then what did you say?

If all you want to do is defend any indefensible action the president does, at least be up front and admit that.

Any "deal" that puts a bigot, misogynist, right-wing ideologue on a major court for life is just stupid. Defending it as "tradition" is weak and silly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. Okay ...

I sincerely hope you wake up one morning findin yourself in fantasy world in which you get everything you want, without having to compromise.

Then we will all be happy.. unless we find ourselves in a dictatorship, where that I the only way that happens.

[Jakes Progress]

18. Not okay.

I don't agree that I should wake up in a world where a Democratic President that I helped elect appoints a bigot who is proud of being a bigot, to a life long position where he will make decisions about what people can do and get away with.

I sincerely hope that you wake up one morning. Just wake up. Obama isn't some helpless little guy who accidentally found himself sitting in the oval office. He wanted the job. He said he could do the job. He promised he would do the job. We hoped he would do better at it. We hoped that he wouldn't continue to make reagan's dream for America come true.

I sincerely hope you learn what compromise means. I sincerely hope that your life isn't bound by the fears you project.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Yep ...

"We’re disappointed that pro-choice President Obama nominated someone who doesn’t share our pro-choice values. We agree with the president on a lot of things, but not this pick," reads the email. "Speak out now and call on your senators to oppose a nominee who can’t be trusted with our rights."

That certain is a call for impeachment for betrayal.

[msongs]

9. well everyone has "family values" that are revealed through actions, not words nt

[Bluenorthwest]

10. This nomination is disgusting.

My Senators will certainly oppose, as we strongly favor reproductive freedoms here. That anti woman right wing bullshit will not fly around here.

[dsc]

11. Pat Leahy deserves at least as much blame for this as Obama, probably even more

Leahy has refused to end the tradition of blue slips where a GOP Senator can ban Obama from appointing a judge to the bench in his or her state by simply refusing to turn in the blue slip. That means in all but VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA, WV, MN, MT, CO, NM, CA, OR, WA, and HI he must get GOP approval for his district and appellate level appointees. It is Leahy's refusal to end this practice, which Orrin Hatch suspended while Bush was in office (but only for Democratic blue slips) that gives the Georgia Senators the power to demand this in the first place.

[Jakes Progress]

14. Good God, who will he pick for a Supreme nominee?

newt gingrich?

[TheKentuckian]

16. Nah, for that high a profile as a Democrat he would be forced to nominate someone Roe friendly

at least arguably so though they may well be very sympathetic to corporate interests and the security state as to be fairly conservative overall.

[woo me with science]

19. +1 You nailed it.

The social liberalism will be used to downplay the inevitable corporatism and surveillance/police state entrenchment, since the latter are the issues the One Percent truly care about.

[jazzimov]

20. Maybe a "strong Latina"?

Do you have a problem with his previous Supreme Court nomination?

[Jakes Progress]

21. Maybe a corporatist, anti-choice, anti-LBGT Latina?

Do you not have a problem with his appointment of michael boggs?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually SEEN an all-out revolt?

It looks something like this:



Just sayin...you know.