Obama Judicial Nominee Vowed To Oppose Gay Boy Scout Leaders

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

New revelations could create more trouble for President Barack Obama’s embattled judicial nominee Michael Boggs.

Boggs, currently a state appeals court judge, apparently ran a staunchly anti-gay campaign for the Georgia state House in 2000. In a flyer from his campaign, obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Boggs vowed: “I oppose same sex marriages, I oppose homosexual Boy Scout leaders, and I support voluntary prayer in schools.”

He billed himself as “a conservative Democrat with conservative values” who’s running on “Christian values,” and suggested he’d have more power and influence as a Democrat given that Democrats were in control of the majority.

Here’s the flyer, published Friday by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Boggs won the race and he made good on his campaign promises. He voted for a state constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage as well as other conservative measures involving abortion and the Confederate battle flag. His votes have landed him in hot water with Senate Democratic leaders, several of whom oppose his nomination.

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. 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.

  2. 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!)

  3. 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.

  4. Yes, just as there are Democrats who hate blacks. However, this man seems more like a wolf in sheep’s clothes.

  5. 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!

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

26 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for mitchd95 Avatar for silverwillow Avatar for darrius Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for Mitch Avatar for trippin Avatar for bradbennett Avatar for irasdad Avatar for jjrothery Avatar for yvonneofnc Avatar for just2stressed Avatar for midnight_rambler Avatar for stradivarius50t3 Avatar for richardnixonhuberthumphrey Avatar for maxaroo Avatar for darcy Avatar for Ridiculousness Avatar for 538liberal Avatar for joelshearer Avatar for foolmemore Avatar for John_Boner Avatar for smokinthegotp Avatar for occamsrazor2

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: