How an Obama Nominee Can Still Stall Out in the Senate

The fate of Michael Boggs’s nomination to a Georgia District Court shows just how tumultuous the nomination process can be, even in a changed Senate.

President Obama waves as he arrives to attend the international D-Day commemoration ceremony on the beach of Ouistreham, Normandy, on June 6, 2014.
National Journal
Elahe Izad
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Elahe Izad
June 18, 2014, 1:05 a.m.

It’s been months since the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion nom­in­ated Mi­chael Boggs to serve on Geor­gia’s U.S. Dis­trict Court, and nearly a month since he test­i­fied be­fore the Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee. And he still hasn’t got­ten a vote.

While Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Patrick Leahy has moved ahead the oth­er nom­in­a­tions for Geor­gia’s courts, Boggs’s has been held back. “More time is needed to fol­low up on his re­cent testi­mony be­fore his nom­in­a­tion will be sched­uled for a vote,” Leahy said in a state­ment last week.

Boggs went be­fore the full com­mit­tee back in May, where he re­ceived a grilling for his re­cord as a con­ser­vat­ive Demo­crat­ic Geor­gia state le­gis­lat­or on is­sues ran­ging from abor­tion to the Con­fed­er­ate flag. Since then, Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id, the Sen­ate’s No. 2 Demo­crat Dick Durbin, and oth­ers have said they are against Boggs’s nom­in­a­tion, or will vote against it in com­mit­tee.

Boggs’s nom­in­a­tion was the res­ult of a deal struck by the White House and Geor­gia’s two Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors, Saxby Cham­b­liss and Johnny Isak­son. They had agreed to re­lease their two-year hold on a Cir­cuit Court nom­in­ee in re­turn for Boggs’s nom­in­a­tion to the Dis­trict Court. The deal in­cludes six oth­er nom­in­ees, the rest of whom are be­ing moved ahead by the Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee.

In ad­di­tion to Boggs’s testi­mony, there are now more than 60 pages of writ­ten re­sponses to fol­low-up ques­tions posed by sen­at­ors after his hear­ing.

One such ques­tion came from Demo­crat­ic Sen. Di­anne Fein­stein of Cali­for­nia, who asked Boggs about his vote to move an “Eng­lish-only” bill through the Geor­gia State­house. In­tro­duced in Feb­ru­ary 2004, HB 1411 would have pro­hib­ited state agen­cies, counties, and mu­ni­cip­al­it­ies from us­ing or print­ing of­fi­cial doc­u­ments and forms and trans­act­ing busi­ness in lan­guages oth­er than Eng­lish, as well as re­peal­ing some ex­ist­ing ex­emp­tions. Boggs voted to move the bill ahead via the pro­ced­ur­al mo­tion to en­gross. The bill even­tu­ally failed.

Fein­stein wrote that she was “con­cerned about the ser­i­ous im­plic­a­tions of this bill had it been en­acted — es­sen­tially bar­ring first re­spon­ders, po­lice of­ficers, phys­i­cians, 911 op­er­at­ors, or a whole host of oth­er state or loc­al gov­ern­ment em­ploy­ees from com­mu­nic­at­ing with non-Eng­lish-speak­ing in­di­vidu­als.” She asked Boggs wheth­er he con­sidered such rami­fic­a­tions be­fore vot­ing to en­gross the bill.

“I do not re­call what my po­s­i­tion was on that bill 10 years ago or even if I had formed an opin­ion on it. As such, I do not re­call wheth­er I con­sidered these sorts of situ­ations or oth­er rami­fic­a­tions pri­or to vot­ing to en­gross this bill,” Boggs wrote in re­sponse.

Ad­di­tion­ally, Boggs ex­plained his vote by point­ing out that the Geor­gia House Demo­crat­ic lead­er­ship had also voted for it: “It was not en­tirely un­usu­al for me to fol­low the lead of my caucus on pro­ced­ur­al votes such as mo­tions to en­gross.”

That ex­change fol­lows oth­er writ­ten an­swers on what he knew re­gard­ing the pub­lic safety risks posed to abor­tion doc­tors when he sup­por­ted a Geor­gia amend­ment to re­quire doc­tors to post their names and num­ber of abor­tions they per­formed on­line.

The con­tro­ver­sial pick has sparked out­rage by abor­tion-rights and civil-rights groups, as well as the revered civil-rights icon John Lewis.

Boggs, to the sur­prise of many, hasn’t with­drawn his nom­in­a­tion. And the White House, for its part, is stand­ing by its nom­in­a­tion of Boggs to re­ceive a life­time ap­point­ment on the fed­er­al bench. “Based on Judge Boggs’s 10-year track re­cord as a state tri­al and Ap­pel­late Court judge, the pres­id­ent be­lieves he is qual­i­fied for the fed­er­al bench,” White House press sec­ret­ary Jay Car­ney said in May.

When asked if Obama sup­ports Demo­crats “vot­ing their con­science” on this nom­in­a­tion, Car­ney said, “The pres­id­ent sup­ports vot­ing your con­science as a gen­er­al mat­ter.”

The pro­longed de­bate is tak­ing place after the Sen­ate changed its rules late last year to al­low most ju­di­cial nom­in­ees to be con­firmed by a simple ma­jor­ity (read: with only Demo­crat­ic votes needed). Even still, Obama picks aren’t al­ways get­ting through the up­per cham­ber.

It’s an open ques­tion as to how far the ad­min­is­tra­tion will push Demo­crats on the Boggs nom­in­a­tion. But, at least for now, it doesn’t seem they are push­ing very hard. Just look at how the White House re­acted when its pick to head the Justice De­part­ment’s Civil Rights Di­vi­sion, Debo Ad­e­g­bile, failed be­cause Demo­crats blocked it: Obama called it “a “trav­esty based on wildly un­fair char­ac­ter at­tacks against a good and qual­i­fied pub­lic ser­vant.” And Durbin had told re­port­ers the White House went on a “full-court press” to garner sup­port. Even Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden was dis­patched to the Sen­ate floor, in case his vote was needed to break a tie.

But it’s not look­ing like there will be any vice pres­id­en­tial at­tempts at hero­ics for Boggs. Even if he makes it through the Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee this sum­mer, without Re­id’s back­ing, he may not even get to the Sen­ate floor for a full vote.

Cor­rec­tion: An earli­er ver­sion of this story mis­stated the nom­in­a­tion in the story’s sub-head­line. Mi­chael Boggs has been nom­in­ated for a Geor­gia Dis­trict Court.

What We're Following See More »
THE PLAN ALL ALONG?
Manchin Drops Objections, Clearing Way for Spending Deal
21 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate standstill over a stopgap spending bill appeared headed toward a resolution on Friday night. Senators who were holding up the measure said votes are expected later in the evening. West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin had raised objections to the continuing resolution because it did not include a full year's extension of retired coal miners' health benefits," but Manchin "said he and other coal state Democrats agreed with Senate Democratic leaders during a caucus meeting Thursday that they would not block the continuing resolution, but rather use the shutdown threat as a way to highlight the health care and pension needs of the miners."

Source:
UNCLEAR WHAT CAUSED CHANGE OF HEART
Giuliani Out of Running For State
1 days ago
BREAKING

Donald Trump transition team announced Friday afternoon that top supporter Rudy Giuliani has taken himself out of the running to be in Trump's cabinet, though CNN previously reported that it was Trump who informed the former New York City mayor that he would not be receiving a slot. While the field had seemingly been narrowed last week, it appears to be wide open once again, with ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson the current favorite.

Source:
ALSO VICE-CHAIR OF TRUMP’S TRANSITION TEAM
Trump Taps Rep. McMorris Rodgers for Interior Secretary
1 days ago
BREAKING
SHUTDOWN LOOMING
House Approves Spending Bill
2 days ago
BREAKING

The House has completed it's business for 2016 by passing a spending bill which will keep the government funded through April 28. The final vote tally was 326-96. The bill's standing in the Senate is a bit tenuous at the moment, as a trio of Democratic Senators have pledged to block the bill unless coal miners get a permanent extension on retirement and health benefits. The government runs out of money on Friday night.

HEADS TO OBAMA
Senate Approves Defense Bill
2 days ago
THE LATEST

The Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act today, sending the $618 billion measure to President Obama. The president vetoed the defense authorization bill a year ago, but both houses could override his disapproval this time around.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login