TKC BREAKING AND EXCLUSIVE NEWS!!! KANSAS CITY FED JUDGE NOMINEE STEVE BOUGH BLASTED BY IOWA SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY OVER POLITICAL BLOGGING!!!

Today, Kansas City power player Steve Bough took a MAJOR SETBACK in his quest to become a Federal Judge.

To wit . . .

STEVE BOUGH BLOGGING WAS DEEMED "CRUDE AND INAPPROPRIATE" BY IOWA SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY!!!

Chuck Grassley didn't take kindly to Bough calling out opposition on his blog and using rather course language time and again. The Senator believes it will reflect on candidate Bough's ability to be objective.

Here's the full statement that I thought was too long to post but ended up reading all the way through . . .

SHAME ON KANSAS CITY MAINSTREAM MEDIA FOR FAILING TO REPORT THESE IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS AGAINST A KANSAS CITY POWER BROKER AND ONLY FOCUSING ON CHEERLEADING FOR THIS LOCAL ELITE LAWYER!!!

Here's the word . . .



Sen. Chuck Grassley's Comments On Steve Bough Political Blogging

Another nominee we will be voting on today is Stephen Bough, who has been nominated to the Western District of Missouri.

Now, anyone who takes even a brief look at Mr. Bough’s record understands that he has chosen to define himself, first and foremost, as a political activist. I’ve always said, I don’t believe we should disqualify someone simply because they’ve been engaged in politics. I’ve voted for countless nominees whose political beliefs are clearly quite different from my own.

So, it’s not a question of whether or not a nominee has been engaged politically.

It’s a question of how that individual has conducted himself.


Does he have the temperament that we look for in a federal judge? Suppose a nominee has been extremely politically active. That’s not a disqualifier.

But has his political dialogue been so coarse – so strident – that we, as Senators, lack confidence that he can render judgment without regard to political considerations?

At our nominations hearing last week, Senator Durbin observed – and I’m paraphrasing here – that often nominees come before the committee and urge Senators to ignore their records. But, in my colleague’s view, and again I’m paraphrasing, the best evidence of the type of judge a nominee will be, is the lawyer they have been.

I don’t agree with Senator Durbin on a lot of issues, but I will say this: I agree that we need to examine the type of lawyer a nominee has been, and then make a judgment call about the type of judge that nominee will be.

So, let me return to Mr. Bough’s

For several years, Mr. Bough blogged routinely about local and national politics. I’ve read his entries. I must tell my colleagues, there can be no debate that some of the things he’s written are crude and inappropriate. And for that reason, I’m not comfortable reading them out loud.

I know at least some of you have reviewed those comments. For those of you who have read his entries, like me, I’m sure you found them to be intemperate, crude, and disrespectful.

Again, I don’t take issue with a nominee who’s been engaged politically. We’ve confirmed – and I’ve supported – a lot of very fine lawyers, who happen to have been politically engaged.

But Mr. Bough is not simply a lawyer who happens to be engaged politically. His record is defined by his political activity, not his legal work. Stated differently, reviewing his record, I don’t see a lawyer who happens to be involved in politics. I see a political operative, who happens to be a lawyer.

In fact, in a moment of candor on his blog, Mr. Bough himself recognized that serving in the judiciary wasn’t a role he was well-suited for.

In response to a critical commenter, Mr. Bough wrote:

“You and the 3 other folks who read this blog will agree I shouldn’t be a judge.”

Truer words have never been spoken.

Putting aside the most embarrassing entries on Mr. Bough’s blog, I’m also concerned by the complaints he lodged with the Federal Election Commission.

Mr. Bough filed two complaints with the Federal Election Commission, against the same candidate. He filed his first complaint in 2008. The FEC dismissed this complaint with a summary opinion. But in 2012, Mr. Bough redoubled his efforts. He filed a 93-page complaint against the same candidate. This time, the FEC responded with a lengthy and meticulous opinion.

The FEC’s response is striking for its strong language dismissing each of Mr. Bough’s allegations. The opinion concluded Mr. Bough’s complaint had “no basis for its allegations.” The FEC also criticized Mr. Bough’s allegations as “vague and speculative” and “unsupported.” When you read the FEC’s opinion, it’s clear these allegations were frivolous.

So, at the end of the day, Mr. Bough was utilizing this government entity for the purpose of harassing a political opponent. That’s the type of behavior we’d expect from a political operative. Not a lifetime appointee to our federal judiciary.

So, to sum up, let me say this.

The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was fond of referring to the federal judiciary as the “crown jewel” of our system of government because of its independence from political considerations. Not only must Senators have confidence in a nominee’s impartiality, but future litigants as well must have confidence in a judge’s objectivity.

With respect to Mr. Bough, I believe his record indicates that he won’t be able to set aside his strongly held political beliefs. He also has proven he lacks the temperament required of a federal judge. And, I fear that future litigants won’t have confidence that Mr. Bough can decide cases impartially.

I’ll be opposing Mr. Bough’s nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same."
###############