WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his opposition Thursday to Michael Boggs’ nomination to the federal bench in Georgia, dealing a strong if not fatal blow to the former state lawmaker’s confirmation hopes.
“Somebody should have looked a little more deeply into his record,” Reid said of Boggs, a nominee to the U.S. District Court in Georgia who faced sharp questioning at a confirmation hearing about his past support for state proposals to post information online about doctors who perform abortions and to keep the Confederate battle emblem on the Georgia flag.
In his testimony, Boggs said that as a state lawmaker, he was representing his constituents’ views. He said he now believes his vote on abortion doctors was wrong, and he’s glad the Confederate emblem was later removed from the flag.
The Democratic-controlled committee has yet to schedule a vote on the nomination, and some lawmakers submitted questions for Boggs to answer before that can happen. Even if the panel does approve the pick, Reid pointedly refrained from saying Boggs should automatically receive a vote in the full Senate.
The White House offered no immediate reaction to Reid’s announcement. Earlier this week, spokesman Jay Carney defended the pick in the wake of the confirmation hearing, saying, “Of all the recent criticisms offered against Michael Boggs, not one is based on his record as a judge for the past 10 years” in state courts.
Boggs was nominated as part of an agreement between Obama and Georgia’s two Republican senators, Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, to fill seven vacancies on the bench in the state.
Isakson said the agreement was that all seven “would all go before the (Judiciary Committee) at the same time,” and did not extend further.
Other members of the Senate Democratic leadership have expressed concerns about Boggs’ record. Additionally, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who heads the Judiciary Committee, made clear that he was not part of the White House’s agreement with the two Georgia senators.
In his testimony earlier in the week, Boggs said that, if confirmed, he would rule based on judicial precedents.
“I can separate any political or partisan or public policy position I may have from my ability to be an impartial decision-maker,” he said.
Democrats also are upset that while in the state Legislature, Boggs supported a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages. He told the committee that his position on that issue “may or may not have changed since that time.”