Motley Moose – Archive

Found on the Internets …

Harry Reid In A Jam Over Controversial Obama Nominee Michael Boggs

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Wednesday he cannot vote for Michael Boggs, a controversial Obama nominee to be a federal judge who has faced fierce criticism from progressives.

“Unless I have a better explanation. I can’t vote for him. This is a lifetime appointment. He’s said some things and made some decisions I think are not very good,” Reid told BuzzFeed. “Boggs is not somebody I’m going to vote for unless I have some explanations on why he did that deal with the rebel flag and things he’s said about abortion.”

As a Georgia state legislator from 2000 to 2004, Boggs voted to keep the state’s old flag which included the Confederate battle flag. He voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and for various anti-abortion bills, one of which pro-choice activists say endangers doctors.

Senators Grill Obama Nominee On Gay Marriage, Abortion, Confederate Flag

The Georgia Court of Appeals judge has come under fierce criticism from progressive advocates for a swath of votes from 2000 to 2004 as a Georgia state legislator against abortion rights, same-sex marriage and to retain the state’s old flag which contained the Confederate battle flag.

Democratic senators took the lead in grilling Boggs.

“I was offended by the flag, Senator,” he told Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) under questioning, saying it was a “terribly agonizing” decision to choose between his own conscience and the will of his constituents, whom he suggested wanted to keep the Confederate-linked flag. But he said: “I’m glad the flag was changed.”

Boggs said he was very sensitive to the views of African-Americans at the time and that those who know him recognize his vote intended no disrespect to them. “If someone is accusing someone of being a racist, I don’t know how you disprove that,” he said. […]

“I don’t think my legislative record that’s over a decade old is indicative of what kind of judge I’d be [on the federal court],” Boggs said.

Did you lack integrity then, sir, or do you lack integrity now?

Regarding the “deal” that makes Boggs part of a package to get past the archaic “blue slip” rule:

“I have noted before that there is no ‘deal’ negotiated with me as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee or with any of the other Senators,” Leahy said in written testimony. “The constitutional responsibility of advice and consent resides with each individual Senator, 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.”

Meet The Republican Judge Fighting To Bail Scott Walker Out Of A Criminal Investigation

Last Tuesday, a Republican federal judge named Rudolph Randa handed down an unusual order cutting off a criminal investigation alleging illegal coordination between several political campaigns – including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) 2012 recall campaign – and conservative groups such as the Wisconsin Club for Growth. Randa speckled his order with uncharacteristic rhetoric for a judge tasked with being a neutral and impartial arbiter of the law. At one point, he labels the criminal probe “a long-running investigation of all things Walker-related.” At another point, he compares efforts to reign in excessive campaign spending to “the Guillotine and the Gulag.”[…]

Beyond whatever ideological lens Randa brings to his courtroom, as George Zornick points out, he also has an unusually personal connection to the criminal probe that he shut down. Randa’s judicial assistant is married to a top lawyer for the Walker campaign.

Oh … and Randa’s wife is a huge contributor to Scott Walker’s campaigns.

Lifetime appointment? And lifetime permission to game the system for partisan politics.

More …

Fictional president Andrew Shepherd said in his famous speech at the end of the movie The American President: “I was so busy keeping my job I forgot to do my job.”

Senate Democrats are so busy worrying about what will happen if they lose the majority that they are refusing to rule like a majority.

 I admit it – I am a romantic.  I grew up with my view of the Senate of the United States colored by Frank Capra's tale (and Jimmy Stewart's portrayal) of the trials and tribulation of Jefferson Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  This holds especially true for my view of the filibuster. Filibusters should look like what Jeff Smith did — one man, standing up in the well of the Senate for what they believe in.  But, that hasn't been the case for, at a minimum, the past 4-6 years.   As the Brennan Center report on Filibuster Abuse  (PDF) demonstrates:

Filibuster Abuse is Rampant:      As of October 2012, the current Congress has enacted 196 public laws, the lowest output of any Congress since at least World War II. This is not purely the result of divided party control of chambers. Control of the House and Senate was also divided from 1981 to 1987 and 2001 to 2003.     The current Senate passed a record-low 2.8 percent of bills introduced in that chamber, a 66 percent decrease from 2005-2006, and a 90 percent decrease from the high in 1955-1956.     Cloture motions — the only way to forcibly end a filibuster — have skyrocketed since 2006, creating a de facto 60-vote requirement for all Senate business.     In the last three Congresses, the percentage of Senate floor activity devoted to cloture votes has been more than 50 percent greater than any other time since at least World War II, leaving less time for consideration of substantive measures.     On average, it has taken 188 days to confirm a judicial nominee during the current Congress, creating 32 “judicial emergencies,” as designated by the Office of U.S. Courts. Only at the end of the congressional term in 1992 and 2010 have there been more judicial emergencies.

 I'm not going to pretend to look at the issue in all its complexity here, but I do wish to look at one aspect of reform efforts that many have fixed upon — the talking filibuster — and contrast that with the proposal towards which, according to Politico , Harry Reid is leaning.  

I have waited to write this diary because I knew I needed to cool off. The health care debate has been a rollercoaster for months now, and the up-down-left-right topsy-turvy nature of the whole ordeal has been turning my stomach for a long time. Over the months, we’ve been bombarded with a dazzling and dizzying array of mixed messages. I’ve allowed myself, at times, to become as hysterical as the worst alarmists in the blogosphere, and just yesterday morning, I was ready to get up in front of all of you to curse Reid, condemn Obama, and prophesy doom. (Not my finest moment, admittedly.) But as I examine and reexamine the dialogue on this issue, my moods and thoughts are as wildly mercurial as the volatile health care debate itself. I have been torn and troubled all along, but the latest news from the Hill has me more perplexed and conflicted than ever. More mixed messages, more obstruction, more disputes — more infighting, alarm, compromises, concessions: A sea of contradictions, contravention, and confusion, well-poised to overwhelm and unravel even the steadiest among us.

So how do we navigate these roiling waters?  

Democratic Senators Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have released a joint statement indicating that Roland Burris, appointed by embattled governor Rod Blagojevich, is now the Senator-designate from Illinois and will be sworn in as President-elect Barack Obama’s replacement in the Senate on January 15, 2009.