February 15, 2014

"It's downright appalling that the Obama administration would give in to right-wing obstruction and nominate ... an anti-choice, anti-equality candidate for the federal bench."

"Putting forward a right-wing candidate that would make George W. Bush think twice for a lifetime judicial appointment isn't horse-trading; it's caving on core progressive values, period."

ADDED: A week ago, I blogged about the Congressional Black Caucus meeting with Valerie Jarret about this and one member complaining: "Do you think George Bush would have been able to do this, or any white president would have been able to do this? No.... This is a terrible mistake, history will record it as such.... And it breaks my heart that it’s a black president."

28 comments:

mccullough said...

W re-nominated two Clinton appellate court nominees, Gregory and Parker, as a sop to the Dems. This is how day-to-day politics works. You give some to get some.

While I understand while NARAL wants attention, the Huff Post article is naive.

SteveR said...

Compromise? Negotiate? Deal making?

YoungHegelian said...

After 9 paragraphs of lefties bitching & moaning the article finally gives some explanation of why Obama did what he did:

Boggs appears so out-of-step with Obama's past nominees because he is part of an all-or-nothing package of six judicial nominees agreed to by the president and Georgia's two Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, months ago. Obama made some pretty big concessions: Four of the six nominees are GOP picks, and just one of the six is African American ...

Do the groups complaining in HuffPo think that the sort of judge they want on the bench is going to get by Sens. Chambliss & Isakson? Not a chance...

SGT Ted said...

"waaaaahhhhh!" isn't an impressive argument.

Irene said...

"Lowery, for one, was so baffled by the president's choice that he said it must have been a staff error. 'I think [Obama] must have left it to somebody else,' Lowery told HuffPost last month. 'It was a mistake.' "

Mistakes were made.

Scott said...

"Putting forward a right-wing candidate that would make George W. Bush think twice for a lifetime judicial appointment isn't horse-trading; it's caving on core progressive values, period." [said the Democracy for America spokesman][emph added]

That made me laugh. There are no such things as "core progressive values."

Progressives have beliefs, that's for sure; often strongly held ones that are bound tightly to their sense of self. When asked, they usually state what they're for or against at the moment -- "I'm not a selfish Rethuglican" or "I defend women's right to choose." But that's not a statement of values. Progressives have no idea what their values are. For them, it's all about identity.

And it's really weak to simply label your enemy and tell yourself that you're against everything that they're for; because then you've given that enemy the keys to who you are. Conservatives and especially libertarians are getting better and better at exploiting this weakness. I loved it when former President George W. Bush pumped billions of dollars into Africa to combat the spread of AIDS. Bob Geldolf praised it. But other progressives? Crickets. Apparently saving Africans from a horrible disease has nothing to do with "core progressive values." It was a teachable moment.

I think that progressives don't really want clarity on what their values are. They might see the beating heart of a monster.

Scott said...

Progressives are like that idiot sports fan I met who said that he would die for the New York Yankees. Sure you would, fella.

Renee said...

" Progressives have no idea what their values are. For them, it's all about identity."

Try telling them this?

The most liberal of local politicians five years ago in my area, are now shamed with the label conservative in the don't comply.

Big Mike said...

A politician is playing politics?!?!? Stop the presses!!!

Chuck said...

The question that I have, is why would Obama compromise on anything now that his old Senate colleagues (Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Leahy, et al) have gone to the nuclear option on Presidential appointees? Why not just ram all of his pet picks through the Senate on a 51-vote majority?

Anyway, as many others have already observed, this sort of horse-trading on lower federal court judges is routine.

Back when the biggest federal judicial crisis arose and the "Gang of 14" tried to resolve it, the stickiest problem was the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Carl Levin (D-MI) was adamant that his cousin, Helene White, get the appointment she had been promised under Bill Clinton, and had been blocked in the Senate. Democrats forced G.W. Bush to renominate her, just to get the rest of the 6th Circuit nominees into place.

Levi Starks said...

It seems like a rather naked admission that they expect "their" judges to legislate from the bench. As opposed to interpret current law.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Offering general condemnation based on circumstantial evidence is a juvenile tactic. The "right-wing" does not dictate a man and woman's choice to have sex. It does not promote standards of diversity defined by color, gender, etc. or other regimes which denigrate individual dignity. It also does not sponsor a general devaluation of capital and labor through progressive inflation schemes (i.e. bubble economics).

rhhardin said...

Judges are important because they're the ones that decide what to overturn.

Fen said...

"nominate ... an anti-choice, anti-equality candidate for the federal bench."

/translate newspeak -> english

"nominate ... a pro-life, pro-liberty candidate for the federal bench."

Sam L. said...

Oh NOOOOOOOeeeeeees! Why do I hear the stamping of dozens of tiny feet?

jimbino said...

Re: "...it's caving on core progressive values, period."

In proper English, one says "...it's caving in to core progressive values, period."

We have to start nipping this slack web English in the butt.

RecChief said...

huh, When sotomayor and Kagan were nominated, I was told that they are not ideological justices, and other than scalia, thomas, and roberts, none of the others are either. You're telling me that there is an ideological litmus test for being a judge? that their ideologies might play some role in their decisions? I mean, Harry Reid said that ending the filibuster was about appointing judges to an overworked court, not appointing judges with an ideological tilt to their decision making. This is real news....whoda thunk it?

SteveR said...

RedChief, I hear ya. I get so confused by this issue.

traditionalguy said...

I have formed the impression that Obama thinks Federal Judges he appoints will all agree with him because he is so great a leader, and that defective old white man's Constitution will be seen as rubbish when King Obama and the redistributes need their support.

rcocean said...

I'm trying to think of liberal Judges nominated by Republican Presidents but can only think of:

Warren
Blackmum
Brennen
Souter
Stevens

So yeah, I guess the author is correct.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

http://tinyurl.com/kvgkhco

They cannot write worth a shit and ought learn a skill or beg better.

Zach said...

You know why Obama keeps trying to seize power to act unilaterally?

He's really bad at horse trading. Really, really bad. He agrees to things and can't (or won't) sell them to his own side.

His problem isn't the opposition. It's that his own side demands and expects more than he can deliver.

The Godfather said...

Obama sold out the people who elected him twice (that is, the swing voters who bought the lies about you can keep your doctor, and smart diplomacy, and no tax increases, and ending the war, and transparency, and post-racial America, and so forth). What made these suckers in Georgia think he wouldn't sell them out?

jelink said...

@rocean, you are confusing Federal Circuit court judges (what we're talking about here) with "Justices", who serve on the Supreme Court.

Huge diff.

David said...

Peggy Noonan has a column today talking about the Clintons and the recent stories about the archives of Hillary's friend Ms. Blair. One of the anecdotes is that a "supporter" of Bill said that the feminists would cut his dick off if he appointed anyone who tinkered with Roe v. Wade. This was said to Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, to his face, Whether this was a literal or metaphorical threat was not clear.

coreysviews said...

Scott said; "I loved it when former President George W. Bush pumped billions of dollars into Africa to combat the spread of AIDS."

You forgot to mention that GW Bush demanded they teach "Abstinence Only" and if they wanted to mention condoms, that too would get millions of dollars taken from cretins parts if the world.

Once Obama became president, he stopped that stupid idea and how did the right-wing spin it? He wanted to support abortionists.

No mention if how condoms help stop the spread of HIV, unwanted pregnancies and how Abstinence only doesn't even work here in the USA.

GWB knowing let hundreds if not thousands of people, mothers, new borns, to all become HIV positive because he refused to send money to places that may mention the use of condoms.

You can try to spin it anyway you want, but GWB is a murderer, and should be tried for crimes against humanity!!!

Drago said...

coreysviews: "ou can try to spin it anyway you want, but GWB is a murderer, and should be tried for crimes against humanity!!"

corey is just another sad sack piece of crap lefty throwing mud.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28605888/#.UwEoTfldWBo

snip1: "Like countless Africans, Mzolisa looks forward to Barack Obama becoming America's first black president Jan 20. But — like countless Africans — Mzolisa says she will always be grateful to Bush for his war on AIDS, which has helped to treat more than 2 million Africans, support 10 million more, and revitalize the global fight against the disease.
"It has done a lot for the people of South Africa, for the whole of the African continent," says Mzolisa, a feisty mother of seven. "It has changed so many people's lives, saved so many people's lives."

Snip2: "Dybul also says it is unfair to accuse the U.S. of overemphasizing abstinence because PEPFAR is a major supplier of condoms to the targeted African countries. For instance, PEPFAR figures show 60 million condoms going to Zambia, 40 million to Rwanda, 145 million to Ethiopia in the past five years."

snip3: "ome critics, like rockers-turned-advocates Bono and Bob Geldof, have become admirers. "The Bush regime has been divisive ... created bitterness — but not here in Africa. Here, his administration has saved millions of lives," Geldof wrote in Time Magazine as he accompanied Bush on an Africa trip last February.
"The administration and Bush himself deserve a lot more credit than they received for getting this job done," says Josh Ruxin, assistant professor of public health at Columbia University."

last snip: ""I am heartbroken overall by the Bush administration," Ruxin said in a telephone interview. "But from my perch here in Rwanda, it is impossible to deny the results and achievements of PEPFAR. Many Rwandans were made Republicans because this was the first administration that has taken an interest and done something here."

What has corey done to help anyone I wonder?

I think everyone can easily guess the answer to that question.