President Barack Obama has told senators he won’t renominate Michael Boggs to be a federal judge in Georgia, marking a significant victory for progressive activists who raised hell over the nominee’s past conservative positions.
“It is with regret that we announce that the President will not re-nominate Judge Michael Boggs to the United States District Court for a third time. We were informed of the President’s decision by Denis McDonough, the President’s chief of staff, prior to Thanksgiving,” Georgia Sens. Johnny Isakson (R) and Saxby Chambliss (R) said in a joint statement on Tuesday. “We regret the President’s decision, as we have supported Judge Boggs throughout this process and remain steadfast in our support.”
Obama had nominated Boggs, a Georgia Court of Appeals judge and former state legislator, as part of a deal with Georgia’s two senators to fill federal judicial vacancies in the state. Progressives went to battle against the nomination, criticizing Boggs’ votes in the legislature against abortion and gay marriage, and in favor of maintaining the state’s Confederate battle flag.
Senate Democrats peppered Boggs with questions about those votes at his confirmation hearing in May, and emerged dissatisfied with his answers. One by one, numerous Democrats came out against him, and his nomination stalled indefinitely — he never came up for a vote in the Judiciary Committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also opposed Boggs.
“I don’t think my legislative record that’s over a decade old is indicative of what kind of judge I’d be,” Boggs said at the hearing.
The abortion rights group NARAL had led the charge against him, and Rep. David Scott (D-GA) torched Boggs over the Confederate flag vote.
“We’re pleased that the deep concerns of tens of thousands of people and over forty organizations were heard, and that there will be one less federal judge who puts his personal ideology ahead of the constitutional rights of all Americans,” NARAL President Ilyse Hogue told TPM. “2015 will be a better year because Michael Boggs will not hold the fate of millions of Americans in his hands.”
The White House had urged progressives to focus on Boggs’ record as a state judge rather than his votes in the legislature, which it did not defend.
In their statement, Isakson and Chambliss praised Boggs’ judicial record.
“Judge Boggs has served the state with honor and integrity as an appellate and trial judge, and he has demonstrated a commitment to improving the criminal justice system through his work with the Georgia Criminal Justice Reform Council and Drug Courts. Throughout the process, Judge Boggs has exhibited enormous restraint and the temperament expected of a jurist. These traits will serve him well for the opportunities we are confident the future holds for Judge Boggs. We wish him the best and thank him for his service to the people of Georgia,” the senators said.
With Republicans taking over the Senate next week, Boggs might theoretically have been confirmed in 2015 despite Democratic opposition. But the GOP Senate will no longer have an opportunity to consider him.
Is it possible that this nomination— which is only for a district court seat— could have been used to make sure similar attacks do not occur on Obama nominees in the next two years? Did anyone try to cut such a deal? All of the important cases get another look in courts of appeals and maybe the Supreme Court so why not make an effort? While Obama appointed a lot of judges, many of them were in their 50’s or even 60’s, whereas the Republicans manage to get judges appointed in their 30’s and 40’s.
Democrats appoint older judges so we can judge them on their records. Opposition to abortion is disqualifying.
How much help do you expect this Supreme Court to be on that issue?
Boggs was nominated as part of a deal, but that’s not it. The Boggs nomination wasn’t made to get future nominees considered, but a bunch of nominees who had already been confirmed.
The White House, Senate Democratic leadership, and Senate Republican leadership made a deal which a collection of Obama’s nominees wouldn’t be blocked, and would go through the ordinary approval process. The Republicans’ “ask” in this deal amounted to two additional nominations - Boggs, and some moderate judge whose names escapes me right now. But the deal was never that those judges would all be confirmed; it was that they would go through the process and not be blocked with the magical powers provided in the Senate rules.
So, Obama got something like eight of the nominees he wanted onto the federal court, and in exchange, the Senate considered and rejected (informally) the Boggs nomination. Not a bad deal.
That’s good to know, and a point that might have been usefully incorporated into the article.
So this looks like a clear victory for the good guys. Unfortunately, by my count the last 74 things that seemed like a clear victory for the good guys turned out, later and upon further review, to be a momentary annoyance easily overcome by the oligarchy.
But, hey, it’s a New Year. Maybe things will be better in 2015.
[quote=“RonThompson, post:5, topic:14901”]
But, hey, it’s a New Year. Maybe things will be better in 2015.
[/quote] Right. Just keep drinking that eggnog.
The Rich shall overcome.