I think the pragmatic argument that Mukasey in office is preferable to the realistic alternative
options makes some sense. Still, avote to confirm him at this point would seem to set a bad precedent. At a minimum couldn't people inclined to take the Schumer line on this just abstain from voting and let the Republicans put him in?
« Um... Off to the Mall... | Main | Gender Card »
Mukasey
03 Nov 2007 03:51 pm
Comments (32)
God forbid that any Congressman actually vote his conscience on this. Equivocation on moral issues is a bedrock American value.
Perhaps this is too conciliatory or insider-Washington (I live in New York and have nothing to do with politics, by the way), but it does seem rude to dump Mukasey. After years of staffing major cabinet positions with candidates who were underqualified lackies or ideologues designed to divide the country (frequently both), here Bush chose a well-respected New York judge who was pre-approved by Chuck Schumer. Now, there would undoubtedly be a certain tough-guy appeal to kicking Bush when he's down, even when he actually tried one of the bridge-building measures we'd been asking for all these years. But I sort of think that we should reward that kind of compromise, not punish it.
Go ahead, call me lily-livered -- I know that it's the sort of thing the other side would do to us in a second. I'm just not sure that's a justification for us to do it as well.
Infirm, if that were the whole story, you'd be right, but it doesn't end there. After being a well-respected judge approved by Schumer, Mukasey demonstrated that he was willing to be browbeaten by the administration into taking whatever position they wanted him to take, including embracing their extreme views on unchecked presidential power, torture, and allowing politicization of the Justice Department. At that point, I don't see what alternative there is to rejecting him.
Can one of you Californias please start a recall of Feinstein? The country needs you.
"Still, avote to confirm him at this point would seem to set a bad precedent. At a minimum couldn't people inclined to take the Schumer line on this just abstain from voting and let the Republicans put him in?"
Abdicating their constitutional authority would be a worse precedent. They are better off with no Attorney General then one that will facilitate the Bush administration breaking the law.
KCinDC is right, the only option is to reject him.
Once again the Dems figure out how to lose. The WaPo headline today says it all: "Democratic Defections Clear Path For Mukasey." This is a party that is a master at projecting weakness, incompetence, and failure. Are Schumer and Feinstein backing Guliani? No? Could have fooled me.
Oh, and infirm - gee, how incivil it would be to be rude to Mukasey by not making him the country's chief law enforcement officer. Much better for the Senate to go on record as approving torture. Because that is what a vote for Mukasey will be. But we can't have rudeness to a high and mighty former judge. And as for rudeness toward the torture victims, well, we can't hear their screams, can we?
They are better off with no Attorney General then one that will facilitate the Bush administration breaking the law.We're going to have that regardless, and we have it now, in the person of the acting AG. If Mukasey isn't confirmed, then Keisler stays in place, or maybe Bush uses a recess appointment to put Mukasey, or Harriet Miers, or Karl Rove, or Jenna, or Barney in place instead.
The advantage of having no AG isn't that Bush will lack a facilitator of illegal acts -- it's that Congress won't have given its blessing to the facilitation.
But I sort of think that we should reward that kind of compromise, not punish it.
I'm all for "rewarding" this sort of compromise, too, if the compromise in question involves the appointment of a person who can bluntly and unequivocally come out against torture in all its forms.
Surreal awfulness is what we're dealing with when it comes to the current administration, folks, surreal awfulness.
There's another good reason for Senate Democrats to oppose Mukasey. Those of us who are worker bees in the Democratic party desperately need to see some signs of life from our Congresspeople. We've been busting our ass out here, fundraising, knocking on doors, registering new voters, working at polling places, and clicking on PayPal once in awhile to send our hard-earned dollars to support the party.
But there is enormous frustration, and a lot of us are getting discouraged about the cowardly and unprincipled performance of our representatives in Congress. What this could lead to is a splintering, and a realistic third-party bid that would benefit the Republicans.
The best thing would be to reject Mucasy and keep the interm guy, then when Hilery or Obama is elected stick in a AG who will immediatly start charging the guilty parties with torture. That's how congress protects it's power.
No, Matt. Its time to draw the line.
Holy shit, they got about a million people killed in Iraq based on a hoax! They torture people and are actively trying to destroy our democracy -- with a pretty fair amount of success I might add.
Ever since the war criminal George Bush was first inflicted upon this nation, the Democrats have disgraced themselves over and over and over again by failing to take a stand and fight back. They've seen over and over that when they fight they win. But they're still afraid to fight. A couple examples:
1) Gore was running a fairly lame campaign but he went populist at the convention and ran up his numbers.
2) The frontrunner presidential candidates in 2003 were planning on running timid campaigns, afraid to talk about Iraq, afraid to talk about tax cuts, afraid to call Bush what he is. Then Howard Dean started talking like he meant it and he came out of nowhere to shoot to the frontrunner position. All the other Democrats fell into line behind Dean and started calling for tax cut repeal and criticizing Bush and his criminal war -- and they did just fine. if they could sustain it for a while so people will think its real, they could dominate American politics. With Dean kicking his ass on a daily basis, Bush's numbers plummeted like a rock until Kerry got a safe lead, after he which he turned back into a pussy and lost.
The Democrats won a huge victory in 2006. They have a larger majority than the Republicans ever did from 1996-2006. Bush is historically unpopular. And the president is a fucking war criminal who makes a mockery out of our national character every minute that he stays out of jail.
Time to draw a fucking line. Way PAST time.
Mukasey? Filibuster that torture supporting, anti-democracy, anti-American piece of shit. You can't come into the Bush Administration in late 2007 and pretend you don't know what kind of criminal gang you're joining.
As John Dean has pointed out, the Judiciary Committee should have extracted certain promises from Mukasey, as they did from Eliot Richardson back in the good old Nixon days. They did not. As far as I know, they did not even get his express commitment to allow the US Attorney for DC to prosecute contempt-of-Congress charges. That's the real dereliction I blame the Judiciary Democrats as a whole for.
DiFi and Schumer are as contemptible as Lieberman, at this point. But it's not _their_ votes that will confirm Mukasey. It's their votes plus the votes of such "principled conservatives" as John McCain and Huckelberry Graham, along with the votes of unabashed Dubya lackeys like the rest of the GOPers in the Senate. Let us spit on traitorous Dems by all means, but let's hawk a few loogies also at those whose votes for Mukasey were never, ever in doubt.
-- TP
It's not just the caving in that is so disappointing but the absence of any condemnation with any sense of indignation over the candidate's position on torture.
Dem leaders could have used this as a moment for teaching Americans about the Bushistas' real lack of morality and ability to follow the constitution.
What we see instead are contemptible displays of weak kneed and dickless political calculations.
I think the appropriate position is to keep an 'acting' AG in office until 2009. That's rough on the DoJ staffers, but Mukasey has already shown that he's prepared to shit on any principles he might hold to toe the White House line. Better to have the the position held open and declare it unsalvageable while Bush remains in office than to endorse a bullshitter.
Can one of you Californias please start a recall of Feinstein? The country needs you.
Posted by the other 49 states
There doesn't appear to be any way to do that. But I wish there was.
The advantage of having no AG isn't that Bush will lack a facilitator of illegal acts -- it's that Congress won't have given its blessing to the facilitation.
Posted by KCinDC
Exactly.
More importantly it's that a Democratic Congress won't have given their approval.
Heh, people in San Francisco KNOW Feinstein has been owned and operated by corporate interests since day one - and they still voted the stupid bitch into the Senate.
I've several times emailed her about Iran - and never gotten a straight answer out of her office.
Forget about a recall. You're lucky they don't try to make her President instead of Clinton. Believe me, she'd be more corrupt than Hillary could even be. As I like to say, Feinstein is the most corrupt politician since Hermann Goering.
If Josh Marshall wants "all corruption all the time" over at TPM, he ought to look into some of the Dems as well as the Republicans. He'd find plenty with Feinstein, I'm sure.
John Dean has it right. The Dems should have asked for a Special Prosecutor as part of the deal - but of course, that would remind the country of Bill Clinton and HIS Special Prosecutor "problem" - and of course Hillary and the Dems can't allow that to surface at this time.
Schumer? Now there's a closet conservative. He promotes bills to establish a military draft, then claims it's because that would force the Republicans to send their kids to war. Oh, no, that isn't the reason. The real reason is that Schumer wants a draft, so he can get more wars so his New York investment constituents can make more money, same as Clinton. He's just another Joe Lieberman, except he's more adept at concealing it.
You suckers need to realize that just because Democrats lobby for unions, they aren't "for the common man." They're just as crooked as the Republicans, as Mayor Daly proved in Chicago for decades. Power is power and doesn't discriminate between Dems and Repugs.
They just don't hang out in rest rooms in their spare time. They're like Clinton - they get their kink heterosexually...
I think the pragmatic argument that Mukasey in office is preferable to the realistic alternative
options makes some sense.
This could only be a sick joke. The Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain from agreeing to any proposal, nomination, or invitation from Mr. Bush. It should be the Democrats' position that the Bush administration is beyond the pale and cannot be accommodated. At this point, any acquiescence by the Democrats is essentially an endorsement, an acceptance, by the Democrats, of Bushism. History will recall this as ignoble in the extreme. The Democrats could have been bold after Nov. 2006. After five hears of the fetishization of Bush's "boldness," the Dems could have taken that quality to a whole new level. By making the obvious arguments in planned, powerful ways, (I've seen fantastic writing and framing of the issues here in the blogosphere), the Dems would have brought the nation with them. They could have led popular opinion instead of constantly trying to chase it. At the least, the Democrats would wind up on the right side of history.
Now the Dems shall confirm the nomination of an Attorney General who testified before Congress that the president has the power to ignore the law "to defend the country." I really don't care what Mukasey told Schumer in private. If this doesn't fall within the definition of despotism, nothing does. With all the evidence of pervasive lawbreaking throughout the executive branch - including but not limited to highly highly credible accusations of war crimes and crimes against peace - Democrats' willingness to follow the Bush administration's lead on anything at this point is morally just about as worthy of condemnation as actively directing this madness.
I think the pragmatic argument that Mukasey in office is preferable to the realistic alternative
options makes some sense.
This could only be a sick joke. The Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain from agreeing to any proposal, nomination, or invitation from Mr. Bush. It should be the Democrats' position that the Bush administration is beyond the pale and cannot be accommodated. At this point, any acquiescence by the Democrats is essentially an endorsement, an acceptance, by the Democrats, of Bushism. History will recall this as ignoble in the extreme. The Democrats could have been bold after Nov. 2006. After five hears of the fetishization of Bush's "boldness," the Dems could have taken that quality to a whole new level. By making the obvious arguments in planned, powerful ways, (I've seen fantastic writing and framing of the issues here in the blogosphere), the Dems would have brought the nation with them. They could have led popular opinion instead of constantly trying to chase it. At the least, the Democrats would wind up on the right side of history.
Now the Dems shall confirm the nomination of an Attorney General who testified before Congress that the president has the power to ignore the law "to defend the country." I really don't care what Mukasey told Schumer in private. If this doesn't fall within the definition of despotism, nothing does. With all the evidence of pervasive lawbreaking throughout the executive branch - including but not limited to highly highly credible accusations of war crimes and crimes against peace - Democrats' willingness to follow the Bush administration's lead on anything at this point is morally just about as worthy of condemnation as actively directing this madness.
I think the pragmatic argument that Mukasey in office is preferable to the realistic alternative
options makes some sense.
This could only be a sick joke. The Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain from agreeing to any proposal, nomination, or invitation from Mr. Bush. It should be the Democrats' position that the Bush administration is beyond the pale and cannot be accommodated. At this point, any acquiescence by the Democrats is essentially an endorsement, an acceptance, by the Democrats, of Bushism. History will recall this as ignoble in the extreme. The Democrats could have been bold after Nov. 2006. After five hears of the fetishization of Bush's "boldness," the Dems could have taken that quality to a whole new level. By making the obvious arguments in planned, powerful ways, (I've seen fantastic writing and framing of the issues here in the blogosphere), the Dems would have brought the nation with them. They could have led popular opinion instead of constantly trying to chase it. At the least, the Democrats would wind up on the right side of history.
Now the Dems shall confirm the nomination of an Attorney General who testified before Congress that the president has the power to ignore the law "to defend the country." I really don't care what Mukasey told Schumer in private. If this doesn't fall within the definition of despotism, nothing does. With all the evidence of pervasive lawbreaking throughout the executive branch - including but not limited to highly highly credible accusations of war crimes and crimes against peace - Democrats' willingness to follow the Bush administration's lead on anything at this point is morally just about as worthy of condemnation as actively directing this madness.
I think the pragmatic argument that Mukasey in office is preferable to the realistic alternative
options makes some sense.
This could only be a sick joke. The Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain from agreeing to any proposal, nomination, or invitation from Mr. Bush. It should be the Democrats' position that the Bush administration is beyond the pale and cannot be accommodated. At this point, any acquiescence by the Democrats is essentially an endorsement, an acceptance, by the Democrats, of Bushism. History will recall this as ignoble in the extreme. The Democrats could have been bold after Nov. 2006. After five hears of the fetishization of Bush's "boldness," the Dems could have taken that quality to a whole new level. By making the obvious arguments in planned, powerful ways, (I've seen fantastic writing and framing of the issues here in the blogosphere), the Dems would have brought the nation with them. They could have led popular opinion instead of constantly trying to chase it. At the least, the Democrats would wind up on the right side of history.
Now the Dems shall confirm the nomination of an Attorney General who testified before Congress that the president has the power to ignore the law "to defend the country." I really don't care what Mukasey told Schumer in private. If this doesn't fall within the definition of despotism, nothing does. With all the evidence of pervasive lawbreaking throughout the executive branch - including but not limited to highly highly credible accusations of war crimes and crimes against peace - Democrats' willingness to follow the Bush administration's lead on anything at this point is morally just about as worthy of condemnation as actively directing this madness.
Filibuster. If not for standing up against crimes against humanity then when?
He seems like a fine man, and probably the best from Bush. But not to condemn torture is unacceptable, a disqualifier. If that means no decent AG for the remainder of small George’s term, so be it. It is small George’s control to do the decent thing. Senators should not buckle to his petulance and vote in favor of war crimes. Principals do matter.
Sorry for the repeat back there.
As the old saying has it: When your enemy's drowning, throw 'em an anvil.
Instead, DiFi and Schumer threw him a lifeline. The argument seems to be that Mukasey was they best they could get. Well, how can they be sure, since they didn't try for anyone better? Why are they negotiating with themselves?
What Gonzales was about, was purging everything decent from Justice. All those who are left are, by definition, loyal Bushies. So, what Mukasey will be about is rebuilding Justice as a pure branch of the Federalist Society, and infesting it with as many hacks as he can. Assuming that in 2008 a Democrat wins, lives, and is allowed to take office without some sort of continuity of government issue intervening, the only way to deal with the infestation will be to burn the building to the ground and start over. But then, we knew that.
Best would be a caretaker AG (and where were DiFi and Shumer on that, I might ask).
Next best would be no AG (a Justice Department that does nothing is better than one that does what Bush wants is the fruition of the Conservative movement: Destroying the Constitution and replacing it with authoritarian rule).
Next best would be allowing Mukasey to become AG, but only with Republican votes (DiFi and Shumer have to vote, affirmatively, for this? WTF?)
Next best a filibuster, which at least can be used to educate the public.
And then, of course, there's what we have now...
I would love to see that "some sense".
On the negative side, unabashed partisanship of DoJ unleashed a number of purely political prosecutions of Democratic politicians and political activists, an issue that they seemed to care about. And so far the best they could do is to "raise the issue".
The central issue seems to be: is Democratic Party making torture a moral cause or not? Are war crimes acceptable? There seems to be a split. Some see war crimes and torture as an issue that can and should be that stand of the party, as it should be for the nation. Rather few share Republican enthusiasm for "doing whatever may be necessary", but quite a few, like Schumer and Feinstein, think that a moderate and nuanced approach is politically the wisest one.
There was a certain pragmatic case here when the nation was gripped by post 9/11 paranoia. But this does not seem to be the case, so I would like to see "the pragmatic argument" spelled out.
In the heydays of paranoia, GOP was succesfully presenting an opposition to some extremist parts of the bill enacting the Office for Homeland Security as accomodation with al-Qaeda, but it is doubtful if this dog can still hunt.
In the same time, succesful politicians can at least pretend to be principled.
I just got a hit today to an article how Diana Feinstein, of all people, uncovered totally atrocious attitude of Mukassey to discrimination agaist women. A policewoman from NYC was fired for complaining that a man of the force raped her. Both man and woman passed lie dedector tests. When she tried to sue, Mukassey have thrown her case out. He was overruled by the next instance. The women won 260k damages is a civil suit against NYPD, Mukassey have thrown out the award, and again he was overruled. Of course, what asked by Feinstein, Mukassey was effusive how he appreciates women etc. so her job is done.
So Mukassey is a retrograde creep, and there is scarecely any hope that he will change any of the atrocious policies of the current DoJ, of which there are many, for the better. Pragmatic case?
Realistic alternative options
If by "realistic", you mean conforming to the conventional wisdom and unwritten constitution, you're absolutely right, there is no alternative to bowing to the emperor's will once he makes it clear that he is serious about wanting a particular nominee confirmed. If that's realism, we should just drop the pretence that we live under a republic.
But if you don't put that restriction on the meaning of realism, then there are plenty of alternatives. The Senate majority could simply refuse to confirm Mukasy, and let the President carry out his threat to not nomante anyone else for AG. Even if this impasse would somehow be the responsibility of the Senate, rather than the President who, after all, is the one who has announced that he will nominate no other, while no one in the Senate is threatenting to approve no other than his or her own favorite, I don't see the impasse as a problem. There is neither a Consitutional nor a practical reason that we need an AG. Even the department's efforts in support of the "war on terror", such as it is, much less the many other legitimate functions that DoJ carries out, need any direction from any AG. Insofar as such direction is useful, I see no reason that an appropriately experienced, non-partisan, career DoJ attorney could not provide direction as good as any that Mukasy would provide. The value that having an AG provides is almost entirely negative, and here the office could indeed earn its pay many times over. An AG is only as good -- I mean as good for the people, not the President -- as his or her willingness to stand up the President and not let the administration do anything illegal or unconstitutional on his or her watch. Mukasy, by refusing to understand whether or not waterboarding is torture, has already proven to be utterly useless in that respect, a positive danger to the republic. Any career DoJ civil servant who chanced into the acting AGship would be clearly preferable to Mukasy in this vital function of serving as a roadblock to administration lawlessness.
And no, we don't have to settle for the current acting AG, or any recess appointee, as possible alternatives to Mukasy. Either chamber could hold the re-authorization of each and every DoJ political appointee position in abeyance until the incumbents submit to and are cleared by a Congressional inquest into both their involvement in any of the DoJ scandals already under active investigation, and their committment to uphold the Constitution, to include the understanding that waterboarding is indeed torture and other specfics of the rule of law that have come under incomprehensible controversy lately.
Congress won't do any of these things, that are clearly within their Constitutional powers, and required by their Constitutional duties, because most of them sincerely believe the conventional wisdom that says that these powers and duties are irrelevant, that they simply must defer to the President unconditionally whenever they and he come in conflict. They can remonstrate, they can hold hearings to try and shame the President out of a course of action with which they disagree, but they really don't believe that it would be proper for them to do any of the things of actual practical consequence that lie within their described Constitutional powers, any of the things I outline above, to actually oppose a President who refuses to be persuaded out of his disagreement with them. They agree with you that, whatever we call the system of governance we live under, we actually have a functioning dictatorship, whose supposed "law-makers" have no reasonable alternative options to doing their master's bidding, however unlawful and odious that may be.
"Once again the Dems figure out how to lose. The WaPo headline today says it all: "Democratic Defections Clear Path For Mukasey." This is a party that is a master at projecting weakness, incompetence, and failure. Are Schumer and Feinstein backing Guliani? No? Could have fooled me."
The "Democrats" have enabled the BushCo wars from the get go. Why would the AG fracas be an exception?
But not to condemn torture is unacceptable, a disqualifier.
You are right, and I'm not making the case that the democrats should confirm him.
However, should Bush nominate someone that said the obvious: The executive ordered people tortured, the fallout would be extreme. The consequence would be that this individual would be forced to bring war crimes charges under the 1996 War Crimes Act against the administration. Obviously, Bush isn't going to do this, he would have to withdraw Mukasey out of self-preservation if he did or get ready to spend the rest of his life in federal prison.
Almost certainly a future AG from a democratic administration wouldn't be willing to do this because these creatures exist to augment executive power. No way in hell would any future administration make the arguement that a decision decided legal by a prior administration was illegal (as blatant and nuts as this one is) because that would break The Rules.
That's the game and it's sick and messed up and it doesn't have much to do with morality at all.
I think it was either Feinstein or Schumer who brought up the threat of a recess appointment as a reason to vote for Mukasey. As wrong headed as that is, it is a legitimate concern. But every time the recess appointment has come up during the Bush years I've been amazed by this heretofore unheard of (by me) presidential power. It is a huge power that greatly shifts the balance towards the president. In fact, why should the president submit his appointments to the senate at all? Why not just make all appointments during the recess? I've been told there's nothing that can be done about it, it's in the constitution, it's the president's legal right. Resigned, I decided to look it up anyway.
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
Wait a minute! What is this "happen during the recess" business? A straight reading suggests that the vacancy has to have happened during the recess. Gonzales left his post while the Senate was in session so the president can't fill it. I guess it comes down to what it means for a vacancy to "happen", but it seems clear to me. Someone care to tell me why I'm wrong? And why this hasn't been brought up before?
I've argued in favor of letting Mukasey be AG, because Peter Keisler, who will most likely otherwise sit in the AG's chair, is worse. The fact that I can see a comment thread this long without any mention of the name 'Peter Keisler' really disappoints me. In any event, I thank Matt for his sympathy towards the pass-Mukasey position.
I'm happy enough to see a large number of our Democratic Senators vote against Mukasey, or refrain from voting so that he passes. But he needs to get the job, because he's the least corrupt possible candidate. We get a pro-torture AG either way.
The fact that I can see a comment thread this long without any mention of the name 'Peter Keisler' really disappoints me.
Who gives a shit about Peter Keisler? There is no Cabinet member in this administration who is permitted to exercise personal discretion. If Keisler is doing anything insidious, it is specifically on orders from above. If Mukasey comes in, Keisler and/or Mukasey will continue doing whatever Cheney/Addington/Bush want.
We get a pro-torture AG either way.
Yeah, so the Democrats might as well get on the bandwagon now. No reason to let Bush hog all the credit!
Comments closed November 17, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think the pragmatic argument that Mukasey in office is preferable to the realistic alternative
options makes some sense.
If the Democrats, as an elected party, had any ability to say No, the realistic alternative would be an interim AG til Bunnypants leaves office.
Which is a much more satisfactory alternative than Democrats voting for an AG that refuses to rule out torture as American policy.
Posted by flory | November 3, 2007 4:04 PM