President Obama has had a hard time getting his judicial appointees through Congress, so you might cut him some slack for nominating moderates who might attract bipartisan support. There’s no possible explanation, however, for why Obama nominated Michael Boggs to be on the federal district court in Georgia, unless he was out to alienate his base.
Boggs, who currently serves on the Georgia Court of Appeals, has an inglorious track record opposing anything LGBT. As a state legislator, Boggs not only voted for a ban on marriage equality; he introduced the measure and gave a reprehensible speech justifying the bill as an opportunity “to stand up for things that are commonsensical; things that are premised on good conservative Christian values, and, in this instance in particular, to support the sanctity of marriage.”
Just how conservative is Boggs? A flyer that Boggs distributed in 2000, when he was running for Georgia state representative sounds as if it was written by Focus on the Family.
“My parents taught me quality conservative Christian values,” the flyer reads. “You can count on me to remember their lessons as your State Representative.”
Just in case you wonder what those values might be, Boggs spelled them out: “I oppose same sex marriages, I oppose homosexual Boy Scout leaders, and I support voluntary prayer in schools.”
Asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee this week if his opinion on marriage equality had changed, Boggs gave a non-answer.
“My position on that, Senator, may or may not have changed since that time — as many people’s have over the last decade,” Boggs said. In other words, that’s for him to know and you to find out.
Senate Democrats are very unhappy with Boggs’ nomination and haven’t been shy in saying so. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he won’t support Boggs, which is the kiss of death for his nomination.
It’s not just the gay issues that are sinking Boggs. He also voted to retain the Confederate Flag, displaying an appalling lack of sensitivity to the African-American community.
Boggs probably won’t make it onto the bench. But that’s not the issue. The issue is, why did Obama nominate someone whose positions are so antithetical to the Administration’s? There’s plenty of room for disagreement about issues, but not about principles. In this case, the urge to get anyone through Congress seemed to trump everything else, and that’s a bad sign.
Photo via ProjectQAtlanta
For the love of god, do some research.
Georgia’s GOP Senators were threatening to hold blue slips on all of Obama”s nominees for Georgia courts, including the 11th Circuit. In the end, this was the only one they snuck in as a package deal.
It was a quid pro quo, Queerty, you know this. To get several moderate and liberal judges through he had to also nominate this right-winger who Southern conservative GOP Senators wanted. It’s really not that hard to understand.
Oh come now. You can’t expect them to actually do some investigative digging can you? That would be too much like right….too much like work.
I hate the way the Federal Govt “system” operates! Every one of those old d*ck-sh*ts in Congress needs to be sent packing! The problem is, voters want to keep their own incumbent DS, and get rid of others’ old DS.
The real reason him and others been put in their position is for me to them! gives me something to do (I should get pay for it).
The real reason him and others been put in their position is for me to hate them! gives me something to do (I should get pay for it).
But isn’t it interesting thta the Quid Pro Quo is always about gays? I seriously doubt that if this was was a KKK leader, or advocating for women to not have rights if he would have been put up.
The nominees can be forced through, it’s just people are still too wimpy to do it. If GA’s Senators were doing that Obama should have nominated somebody ridiculously liberal for the seat there, and when they flipped out respond by saying “Oh, well you didn’t like the first person I nominated” Obama’s history has been to try to give too much to the other side right away.
I suspect this was a deal to get a group of conservative representatives to cooperate on another deal the administration is trying to pass. It’s politics.
I know it’s politics, I’m just saying that if the guy didn’t think women should vote, or blacks should marry it wouldn’t have happened.
I just notice that it’s gay rights that are always the ones that are bargained away.
@Cam: It’s not just the gays, the blacks think he’s disgusting as well. He’s an allround disgusting nominee but yes it appears gays do get the brunt of the hate nowadays
Funny how when Obama does something in our favor, it’s because he so obviously loves and supports us, but when he does something against us, it’s “just politics.”
The reason you can’t see the forest? They’re called “trees.”
Funny how BJ will defend and protect every single anti-gay bigoted politician and yet when democratic politicians do things that are not even 1/10th as bad he will lash out at them.
Interesting that you expend so much effort trying to defend people who flat out want gays dead or gone.
When Obama says he supports gay marriage and tells the AG to not defend anti-gay laws in court, and John Boehner uses tax payer funds to hire private attorneys to defend those anti-gay laws. Interesting how you will defend Boehner and still attack Obama.
You are beyond self hating. You are the abused puppy scratching at the back door of the house of the people who abuse you begging to be let in.
the senators of the state where the judge or prosecutor will be located usually have a large say in who is picked so i am sure the GOP GA senators are behind this.
I don’t know whey I even bother when it comes to Queerty they don’t even look up the facts they are blindness in their thoughts … it’s stupidity … I think I look at Queerty as the same thing as http://www.theonion.com/ it’s all bullshit they don’t have real writers doing anything … so just look at it like that
Maybe cause he knows he is a closet case and will be outed soon. heh
@Adam1222: He was not the only one. Of six nominees, four (including this yahoo) were selected by the republicans. Obama got two out of that deal. Furthermore, the blue slip procedure is not part of the senate rules. It is a courtesy extended by the judiciary committee. There is no justification for this nomination.
@Kangol: “To get several moderate and liberal judges…” Oh, please do tell. Give us the details about all of these moderate to liberal judges being appointed. By my count, it’s four conservatives v. two moderate/liberal judges. Two does not equal several by any definition.
His personal feelings aside, is he a Constitutional Jurist? Will he follow the Constitution no matter his personal feelings? Is he fair. What he did as an elected official does not always matter. Besides his appointment may have only been to get more moderate and liberal judges through. His appointment doesn’t look promising even in an up or down vote, let alone if he is filibustered.
@jar: That IS the definition of several: two or more
@ParkerSparx: Not to belabor the point, but you ARE wrong. Couple is two; several is more than two.
Obama doesn’t seem to know the difference between compromise and appeasement.
@Jim Guinnessey: W@Jim Guinnessey: When you are in his shoes you can talk!
No, actually as a citizen and a voter he has the right to talk all he wants since the President is an elected official.
Comments are closed.