Michael Boggs' nomination to district bench in Georgia appears dead

The AP has the story here:

President Barack Obama's controversial selection of Michael Boggs to become a federal judge in Georgia lacks enough votes to survive and the nomination should be withdrawn, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Monday in what amounts to a rare rebuff of the president from his own party.

The fate of Boggs's nomination has been in doubt for months, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other Democrats expressed opposition to him because of positions he has taken on abortion, same-sex marriage and the Confederate flag.

Monday's remarks by the Judiciary chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., signaled what could become an embarrassment for Obama. It is unusual for a president's nominees to be rejected by members of his own party.

Several hours earlier, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama did not want Boggs to withdraw his nomination. Earnest gave a modest endorsement of Boggs, saying Obama believes that "Judge Boggs has the necessary qualifications to serve in this role."

After Leahy's statement, White House spokesman Eric Schultz stood by Earnest's remarks.

Leahy's comments came six weeks before congressional elections in which strong support from women and black voters would enhance Democrats' chances of retaining Senate control and limiting expected losses in the House.

Obama last year nominated Boggs, a state appeals court judge, to become a federal district judge in Georgia. Boggs was recommended by that state's two Republican senators as part of a deal to fill seven judicial vacancies there.

***

Boggs served as a Georgia state legislator a decade ago. During that time, he backed measures to post information online about doctors who perform abortions - which opponents said could jeopardize those physicians - and to keep the Confederate battle emblem on the Georgia flag. He also supported a proposed amendment to the state constitution barring same-sex marriages.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in May, Boggs told the senators that he now believes his vote on abortion doctors was wrong and he's glad the Confederate emblem was later removed from the state flag. He said his views on same-sex marriage "may or may not have changed."

Nonetheless, he was criticized by several Democrats, with some expressing skepticism that he could make impartial decisions.

Abortion-rights groups hailed word that Boggs' nomination was in trouble.

"Everybody wishes this guy would do the right thing and withdraw," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "He's got no pathway forward, and he's taking up time and energy that everybody wishes could be spent on other things."

60 minutes visits the SDFLA and interviews Wifredo Ferrer

You can watch the clip here:

Barry Bonds' conviction in trouble?

That's what all of the court observers are saying after yesterday's en banc argument (watch here*).  Here's one example, by Pamela MacLean:

The government may have struck out with the majority of an 11-judge panel of the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday in former Giants slugger Barry Bonds’ challenge to his obstruction of justice conviction in an investigation of steroids use.
“I find your reading of the statute absolutely alarming,” Judge William Fletcher to the government’s lawyer Mary Jean Chan.  And it got worse from there.
A three judge panel of the appeals court upheld Bonds conviction for obstruction of justice in September 2013 for his evasive testimony to a grand jury investigating illegal distribution of steroids by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO.)
The three-judge appeals panel held that his answers were “evasive, misleading and capable of influencing the grand jury to minimize” the role of Bonds’ trainer, Greg Anderson, suspected of distributing performance enhancing drugs.
Bonds’ attorney Dennis Riordan opened by saying any decision will garner public attention because of Bonds’ celebrity and controversial status.  But that’s not what’s important, what is important, he said, “This is the first time the government has asked to convict  a defendant for comments to a grand jury that were non-responsive, to convict for obstruction of justice because he wandered off topic.”
While Riordan faced tough questioning, most of the fire was reserved for the government.
Fletcher asked what happens in civil litigation if lawyers respond to interrogatories and they give truthful but evasive answers.  “Are they guilty of a crime?” he asked.
“Yes,” responded Chan.
“Well that is a common practice in civil litigation and you may have criminalized half the bar.  “Half the bar may be in serious trouble,” he said.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski accused the government of engaging in some evasive conduct in the superseding indictment by not making clear the Bonds statements that were allegedly evasive.
Bonds’ rambling answers to the grand jury  about being a “celebrity child” in response to a question whether he received any steroids from  Anderson could be the basis of a conviction, the panel held.  The panel found that even truthful answers could be the basis of conviction if they were so evasive.
Bonds was sentenced in 2011 to spend 30 days in his Beverly Hills mansion and perform 250 hours of community service for his conviction to use of dodgy answers to federal questions.  Jurors could not agree on a perjury charge against Bonds.
Judge Susan Graber said, “Speaking for myself, I don’t see how there is sufficient evidence [of obstruction] when the question was asked and answered repeatedly.”
Kozinski asked, “Can you cure a misleading answer?”
“Not if the intent was to mislead at the time,” Chan said.
“But wasn’t it cured in this case?” asked JudgeJacqueline Nguyen?

*How cool (and informative) is it that you can watch the argument right after it happens.  When will the 11th do this?


Meantime, last night the Broward Federal Bar Association had its big gala.  Lots of federal judges turned out, including federal judge hopefuls. 

Should Judge Fuller resign?

In addition to Judge Kopf's posts on the subject, there is growing noise that Fuller needs to step down -- this time from members of the Congress.  From the Montgomery Advertiser:

Alabama's two U.S. senators on Wednesday called for U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller to step down from the bench, joining a growing chorus of federal lawmakers seeking the judge's resignation after his arrest on domestic violence charges last month.
Fuller, 55, was arrested early on the morning of Aug. 10 and charged with misdemeanor battery. According to a police report, Fuller's wife, who had lacerations to her mouth and forehead, said the judge threw her to the ground, pulled her hair and kicked her after she confronted him over alleged affair with a law clerk.
The judge, who was appointed to the U.S. Middle District for Alabama in 2002, agreed to enter a pre-trial diversion program earlier this month. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reassigned his caseload and has launched an investigation of Fuller's actions.
"The American people's trust in our judicial system depends on the character and integrity of those who have the distinction and honor of sitting on the bench and I believe Judge Mark Fuller has lost the confidence of his colleagues and the people of the state of Alabama and I urge him to resign immediately," Sen. Richard Shelby, a Republican, said in a phone interview.
U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Birmingham, called for Fuller's resignation last week, saying he had "violated the public trust." Earlier on Wednesday, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said on her Twitter account that Fuller should resign. U.S. Rep. Martha Roby, R-Montgomery, issued a statement Tuesday saying that "domestic abuse cannot be tolerated, explained away or swept under the rug," and raised the possibility of Fuller's impeachment.
Shelby said he called Fuller to alert him that he was going to publicly call for his resignation. A message left with Barry Ragsdale, an attorney for Fuller, was not immediately returned Wednesday afternoon.

Judge Rosenbaum's first published opinion in the 11th Circuit starts this way

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge: 
It was a scene right out of a Hollywood movie.  On August 21, 2010, after more than a month of planning, teams from the Orange County Sheriff’s Office descended on multiple target locations.  They blocked the entrances and exits to the parking lots so no one could leave and no one could enter.  With some team members dressed in ballistic vests and masks, and with guns drawn, the deputies rushed into their target destinations, handcuffed the stunned occupants—and demanded to see their barbers’ licenses.  The Orange County Sheriff’s Office was providing muscle for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s administrative inspection of barbershops to discover licensing violations.   We first held nineteen years ago that conducting a run-of-the-mill administrative inspection as though it is a criminal raid, when no indication exists that safety will be threatened by the inspection, violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.  See Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995). We reaffirmed that principle in 2007 when we held that other deputies of the very same Orange County Sheriff’s Office who participated in a similar warrantless criminal raid under the guise of executing an administrative inspection were not entitled to qualified immunity.  See Bruce v. Beary, 498 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2007).  Today, we repeat that same message once again.  We hope that the third time will be the charm. 

STRONG!  Click here for the whole opinion.

Judge William Pryor (note that the court is now distinguishing the two Pryors) concurred and dissented from the opinion, with this intro:

I agree with the majority opinion that the search of the barbershop exceeded the scope of a reasonable administrative inspection and that the barbers presented evidence that Corporal Keith Vidler, as the supervisor, violated their clearly established constitutional rights. I also agree that Brian Berry presented evidence that Deputy Travis Leslie, who handcuffed Berry and patted him down, violated his clearly established constitutional rights. But Edwyn Durant, Reginald Trammon, and Jermario Anderson presented no evidence that Deputy Travis Leslie violated their constitutional rights. Even though the inspection of the barbershop appeared to be “a scene right out of a Hollywood movie” (Majority Op. at 1), we cannot bend the law to resolve this appeal with a feel-good ending from a boxoffice hit. The law entitles Leslie to qualified immunity against any barber who failed to present evidence that Leslie personally deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right. Durant, Trammon, and Anderson failed to prove an affirmative causal connection between their specific injuries and Leslie’s conduct. For that reason, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.  

HT How Appealing.