Why an Obama Judicial Pick Could Go Down in the Democratic-Controlled Senate

A post-nuclear Senate doesn’t mean liberal judges galore.

National Journal
Elahe Izad
Add to Briefcase
Elahe Izad
May 14, 2014, 1 a.m.

There was a time when the pro­spect of eas­ing the rules for how the Sen­ate con­firms ju­di­cial nom­in­a­tions in­voked fear among con­ser­vat­ives: Why, Pres­id­ent Obama would go to town and pack courts with lib­er­al judges!

Months later, and pro­gress­ives are the ones up in arms over Obama’s nom­in­a­tion of a Geor­gia state judge to fill a va­cancy on the fed­er­al bench.

The nom­in­a­tion of Mi­chael Boggs to Geor­gia’s U.S. Dis­trict Court has be­come a flash­point for pro­gress­ives, due in part to Boggs’s past le­gis­lat­ive re­cord as a Demo­crat­ic state law­maker and the stances he took on abor­tion, same-sex mar­riage, and even sup­port for the Con­fed­er­ate flag.

But his nom­in­a­tion, of­fi­cially made in Decem­ber, was part of a deal struck with Geor­gia’s two Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors to fill va­can­cies on the courts. Johnny Isak­son and Saxby Cham­b­liss both test­i­fied Tues­day at a Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee hear­ing in fa­vor of Boggs and six oth­er ju­di­cial picks. As part of  the ar­range­ment, Re­pub­lic­ans ended a two-year old hold on the nom­in­a­tion of Jill Pry­or to serve on the 11th Cir­cuit Court.

Prom­in­ent black Demo­crats, such as Rep. John Lewis of Geor­gia, have con­demned the Boggs nom­in­a­tion. And abor­tion-rights act­iv­ists, who have tar­geted the nom­in­a­tion, are turn­ing their fo­cus to Demo­crat­ic sen­at­ors to block Boggs from go­ing for­ward.

“The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion ful­filled their end of the bar­gain by put­ting Boggs for­ward as a nom­in­ee and now is the time for the Sen­ate to vote their con­science and keep him off the bench,” NARAL Pro-Choice Amer­ica Pres­id­ent Ilyse Hogue said in a state­ment.

Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Patrick Leahy handed over the gavel to Sen. Richard Blu­menth­al, a crit­ic of Boggs, to chair Tues­day’s hear­ing on his nom­in­a­tion. But Leahy said in a state­ment that he wasn’t part of the “deal” the White House struck, and there “is no such thing as a bind­ing deal that neg­ates each sen­at­or’s re­spons­ib­il­ity to de­term­ine the fit­ness of a ju­di­cial nom­in­ee for a life­time ap­point­ment.”

Throughout the hear­ing, Boggs at­temp­ted to dis­tance him­self from past ac­tions, in­clud­ing his vote on an amend­ment that would al­low the pub­lic list­ing of abor­tion doc­tors. Many Demo­crats raised con­cerns about it be­cause of the pub­lic-safety risk posed to such doc­tors. “I re­gret vot­ing for it,” Boggs told the sen­at­ors.

Com­mit­tee rank­ing mem­ber Chuck Grass­ley asked Boggs about com­ments he made in 2004 as state le­gis­lat­or re­lated to same-sex mar­riage. But Boggs de­clined to even in­dic­ate how he felt about the is­sue now: “My per­son­al opin­ion was, at the time, over a dec­ade ago, that I was in sup­port of a pro­posed con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment that would have banned same-sex mar­riage. My po­s­i­tion on that, sen­at­or, may or may not have changed since that time, as many people’s have over the last dec­ade.” 

At one point, un­der ques­tion­ing by Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip Dick Durbin about Boggs’ vote to have the Con­fed­er­ate flag in­signia on the Geor­gia flag, Boggs said: “My vote was nev­er in­ten­ded to be dis­respect­ful,” and that his con­stitu­ents wanted it. He also said he was “of­fen­ded” by the flag.

Boggs said his track re­cord as a judge shows he holds no bi­as; he es­sen­tially said he wasn’t a ra­cist, cit­ing sup­port he re­ceived from black politi­cians and voters in his primary elec­tion, which took place after the Con­fed­er­ate flag vote.

Re­peatedly, Boggs dodged ques­tions re­lated to his per­son­al be­liefs on abor­tion and mar­riage. “My per­son­al feel­ings would be ir­rel­ev­ant to how I would act as a judge,” he told sen­at­ors.

Many Demo­crats still soun­ded un­sat­is­fied by such re­sponses, such as Sen. Di­anne Fein­stein of Cali­for­nia. “For my vote, I have to have cer­tainty, and I don’t know quite how to get it in view of this re­cord,” she said.

A num­ber of lib­er­al law­makers who don’t sit on the com­mit­tee, such as Sens. Bernie Sanders and Tom Har­kin, said they don’t have an opin­ion yet about the pick.

But even law­makers who sit on the com­mit­tee, in­clud­ing Blu­menth­al, haven’t come to a con­clu­sion yet.

“I have ser­i­ous con­cerns about some of the ac­tions and state­ments he has sought to dis­avow or dis­claim,” Blu­menth­al told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “I’m go­ing to re­view the re­cord to as­sess the sin­cer­ity and sig­ni­fic­ance of his dis­avow­als, and make a de­cision very shortly.”

The White House is stand­ing by their man. White House Press Sec­ret­ary Jay Car­ney re­it­er­ated Tues­day that Obama “be­lieves he is qual­i­fied for the fed­er­al bench” and that Boggs “ought to be con­firmed.”

“Of all the re­cent cri­ti­cisms offered against Mi­chael Boggs, not one is based on his re­cord as a judge for the past 10 years,” Car­ney ad­ded.

Demo­crats will have to de­cide soon wheth­er to con­cede to pro­gress­ives’ con­cerns or go along with what the White House wants. A markup hasn’t been sched­uled yet, but the com­mit­tee break­down of 10 Demo­crats and eight Re­pub­lic­ans means that even if Boggs gets every Re­pub­lic­an to sup­port his nom­in­a­tion, he’ll still need at least two Demo­crats to back him, too.

In the­ory, ju­di­cial nom­in­ees were sup­posed to be one of the few things that Demo­crats wouldn’t have to fight or make con­ces­sions over. The Sen­ate rules change that took place in Novem­ber means that most ju­di­cial nom­in­ees can be con­firmed by a simple ma­jor­ity. But the blue-slip pro­cess — a pro­ced­ur­al cour­tesy that al­lows sen­at­ors to block nom­in­a­tions of fed­er­al judges to serve in their state dis­trict courts — has be­come an­oth­er av­en­ue by which Re­pub­lic­ans have forced Demo­crats in­to con­ces­sion-mak­ing mode. 

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id told BuzzFeed on Wed­nes­day that he “can’t vote” for Boggs “un­less I have a bet­ter ex­plan­a­tion.” Re­id ad­ded: “This is a life­time ap­point­ment. He’s said some things and made some de­cisions I think are not very good.” Re­id has yet to to talk to Leahy and Lewis about the nom­in­a­tion.

But it’s still un­clear wheth­er Re­id will bring the Boggs nom­in­a­tion to the floor for a full vote, should he pass the Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee, giv­en the White House’s po­s­i­tion. When asked that on Tues­day, Re­id simply re­spon­ded: “We’ll see.”

This story has been up­dated to in­clude Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id’s latest re­marks on the sub­ject.

What We're Following See More »
Trump Still Considering Yellen For Fed
5 hours ago

"President Donald Trump plans to formally interview Janet Yellen this week about potentially staying on as Federal Reserve chair, two people familiar with the matter said...Many Republicans on Capitol Hill want Trump to move on from Yellen, whose first term ends in February, and choose a more traditionally conservative Fed chair."

Trump Noncommittal on Marino
5 hours ago
Manchin Asks Trump to Drop Marino’s Nomination for Drug Czar
6 hours ago
McCaskill Will Introduce Bill in Response to “60 Minutes” Scoop
7 hours ago

In the wake of Sunday's blockbuster 60 Minutes/Washington Post report on opioid regulation and enforcement, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has introduced legislation that "would repeal a 2016 law that hampered the Drug Enforcement Administration’s ability to regulate opioid distributors it suspects of misconduct." In a statement, McCaskill said: “Media reports indicate that this law has significantly affected the government’s ability to crack down on opioid distributors that are failing to meet their obligations and endangering our communities."

Judge Refuses to Dismiss Charges Against Menendez
7 hours ago

"The judge overseeing in U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez’s case says he won’t dismiss any charges against the New Jersey Democrat. Judge William Walls ruled against defense lawyers’ arguments that the charges should be dropped because they didn’t meet a narrower definition of bribery under a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reversed the conviction of Republican former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell."


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.