Comments (26)

dweb wrote on October 16, 2007 1:10 PM:

Oh No! Not another "I have looked into his soul" moment!

I swear....look at the record of anyone this administration puts into position and they are relentless in pushing the administration's agenda.

I don't care how "nice" he is or how measured he seems. Mukasey did NOT get nominated without a thorough vetting by the White House and mr. cheney's office to make sure he is

(a) prepared to use the DOJ to protect them from prosecution
(b) prepared to twist the law like a pretzel to justify destruction of the constitution.

Anyone who thinks otherwise just hasn't paid attention to the past history of these people. Remember, members of Congress have been saying the felt they were lied to by Alito and Roberts during their confirmation hearings based on actions taken since then.

Why is Mukasey going to be any different? If you don't grill this guy and get rock hard assurances, you aren't doing your job, and even if you do Mr. Leahy, don't be surprised if they turn out to be not rock, but sand.

cjop wrote on October 16, 2007 1:10 PM:

Shoo-in even without the President producing the papers Leahy wants in return. Way to stand tough Leahy. Join Conyers, Waxman and the other tough talkers in the irrelevant line. No wonder approval ratings for Congress are lower than Bush's.

benjoya wrote on October 16, 2007 1:18 PM:

come on. rather than have the current bush hack interim AG (who was conveniently substituted for clement at the last minute , at least mukasey stood up to arbitrary detention in the padilla case. this looks like the one decent nomination that monkeyboy has made.

mark wrote on October 16, 2007 1:21 PM:

What happened to not holding confirmation hearings on Mukasey until Leahy got the wiretap and attorney firing documents?

"confused"

Jesse wrote on October 16, 2007 1:25 PM:

2 points:

1) The real question here is what the alternatives are. We all know Bush isn't about to appoint someone that we're going to jump up and down about. So given that, the alternatives are (a) someone considerably nuttier than Mukasey, or (b) the DOJ running without an AG for the next year+. Neither is a preferable option to 1+ year of Mukasey. The DOJ needs someone at the helm as the department is, by all accounts, in a shambles at this point.

2) For all that we trumpet the importance of asking tough questions at hearings and getting assurances, given that Mukasey has been a federal judge, his rulings are out there as a matter of public record and probably provide a much more complete picture of his ideology than any answers he will give, either at a hearing or at a private meeting with Senators. By most accounts, judging by his rulings, Mukasey is an unmistakable conservative, but one who has considerably more respect for the rule of law than his predecessor (not that that's setting a very high bar). So to the extent that a member of the Judiciary Committee wants to say he'll likely vote for Mukasey before a hearing based on an analysis of his judicial record, I really don't have a problem with that.

So while I absolutely believe Mukasey should be questioned substantially at the hearing, at the end of the day, I think we need to face the reality that he is almost certainly the best we'll get at this point, and that a confirmation hearing will likely be more about bluster than about actually getting information that is not already available.

chisholm wrote on October 16, 2007 1:27 PM:

I'm with dweb. There's no way in hell the administration is going to nominate a non-hack for the AG position. Mukasey is going to pull a John Roberts: obfuscate, lie, charm and tell them what they want to hear. He will start singing a very different tune once he's in office.

Jeff wrote on October 16, 2007 1:36 PM:

What I wouldn't give to play poker with Leahy! I could hold my pair of 3s with the dead certainty that he would fold his full house, tell me what lousy hands he's getting,and end up giving me his pot.

Tom wrote on October 16, 2007 1:36 PM:

Just think Trojan horse.

spinn wrote on October 16, 2007 1:39 PM:

The hint was when they slipped in that really strong crony as the interim AG. I'm sure that must've been to make Mukasey the lesser of two evils.

JSP wrote on October 16, 2007 1:46 PM:

There is a big difference between an appointee's answering questions in private and in public, which is why I'm very disappointed with Leahy, and increasingly with other committee chairmen, in agreement with cjop.

workaday joe wrote on October 16, 2007 1:53 PM:

Good points Jesse. I think you're right, but that just demonstrates how junior varsity the dems are. I didn't see this coming, but someone must have? The Dems really just don't have any leverage on the process at all? Why even elect them?

Beanball wrote on October 16, 2007 1:55 PM:

I am a progressive Democrat. There is noone who dispises this Administration more than me. However, I have appeared before Judge Mukasey many times and I can tell you, without question, he will uphold the rule of law. Plus, he's a Bronx boy, and that's a good thing.

Beanball wrote on October 16, 2007 1:56 PM:

I am a progressive Democrat. There is noone who dispises this Administration more than me. However, I have appeared before Judge Mukasey many times and I can tell you, without question, he will uphold the rule of law. Plus, he's a Bronx boy, and that's a good thing.

P J Evans wrote on October 16, 2007 1:58 PM:

"Like" is for food, not for cabinet positions. Or for Presidents. We got the current maladministration because (at least in part) the candidates were pushed on the basis of "being liked" by John Doe, barbecue-and-beer fan.

Leahy, "like" doesn't cut it any more. "Competence" and "Honesty" are what we need.

Glenn wrote on October 16, 2007 2:00 PM:

I'm with Beanball. Mukasey was a good judge, even if a bit more law-and-order than my leanings. Unless he's completely changed, he won't be a Bush lackey.

Merle wrote on October 16, 2007 2:26 PM:

Just to echo Glenn and Beanball, I have appeared before Mukasey and he was a good, fair judge who absolutely respects the rule of law. He is not someone I would choose for AG, but he is a professional and certainly not a hack. And don't be too sure about the quality of the Bush vetting team. Just ask that other New Yorker nominated for the cabinet Bernie Kerik.

None of this is to say, however, that the Democrats shouldn't stand up to Bush on the US Attny docs. But the point made by Jesse is totally right - the longer Mukasey is held up, the longer Keisler, a real right-wing hack will stay in as Acting AG.

oldtree wrote on October 16, 2007 3:04 PM:

It is rather unbelievable that the senator would not announce his change to the republican party prior to getting in bed with one to screw the constitution and it's subjects.

Duckman GR wrote on October 16, 2007 3:47 PM:

I'm with Jeff, these fools are the sorriest bunch of "hard nosed" politicians that have ever lived.

They all probably go to the Casinos and play Roulette and think that their bets influence the little bouncing ball and the shiny twirling wheel.

They all need to go, they're too old, too tired, too entrenched, too weak, too whipped. Time for retirement Senators, just go away and enjoy your pension, we'll call you if we need you.

MNPundit wrote on October 16, 2007 3:51 PM:

Okay, to the people who have "appeared" before him, what cases were they?

brantl wrote on October 16, 2007 3:53 PM:

Mukasey said that while enemy combatants should have lawyers, he said that the defense department could monitor ALL THEIR MEETINGS. If you were accused of something, would it be okay if the opposition got to listen to every conversation that you had with your lawyer? Not me, thanks. Mukasey's more than a bit of a Nazi.

Duckman GR wrote on October 16, 2007 3:56 PM:

But Merle et al, he is a hack. And you mistake their vetting process. THere was nothing wrong with Bernie as far as they were concerned, it was just that the idiotic Dems actually said something for once, otherwise he would have been approved too.

How can the Dems stand up for the AG docs when they just threw away their leverage?

You know, I'm getting to the point where I don't WANT these cowards winning next year at all. Get a Dem in the White House, and piss all the Congress, not that the incompetence of the GOP is going to regain Congress, do we realy want these tired, pathetic, weak, gutless, clueless, old men and women running the country, can we expect them to fix ANYTHING that Bush has FUBAR'd?

I have no expectations, when a corporation can tell them to fuck off in the face of an all mighty Congressional subeoena, none at all.

Mary wrote on October 16, 2007 4:21 PM:

If not Mukasey - you get Keisler.

Mukasey is hands down better than any other name that was floated and would be exponentially better than Keisler.

OTOH, I'm sure that to get Mukasey the fix probably went in on many things, including free passes for all kinds of depraved behaviours.

Congress can't name the AG, only turn one down. And turning down Mukasey in order to keep Keisler is a bad bargain. It's a shame, though, that Leahy and Mukasey will be lending themselves to the kinds of payoffs that will be attendant to get Mukasey in place.

It will be a sad day, but after so many and much sadder days, barely a blip on the screen.

DOJ has been willing whore and it is so riddled with disease it doesn't really matter what efforts are made now to lend a pretense of respectablity. With any of the Republicans or with Clinton in office - it will continue and cement itself as a political branch, willing to provide cover for the worst kinds of filth and depravity a sovereign might wish to engage in, all the while acting politically with numerous loyal Bushie incompetent or immoral or both career appointments, in place to attack law and justice at any and every political turn.

And eventually, the judges who are brave enough to stand up and say to DOJ: I don't believe your lies and the trappings of your office don't change that will be gone. They already are dwindled and diminished and bound now by despicable and shameful precedent shoved down their throats not only by a corrupt President and corrupt DOJ, but by a corrupt Congress that would pass filth like the MCA.

Unclean.

That's all that's left - the unclean. It's just a matter of degree.

Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 4:53 PM:

Tell me why anyone would vote Democratic? There is One Party and then there is America.

Nell wrote on October 16, 2007 5:21 PM:

Without a written guarantee from Mukasey that he will enforce subpoenas and contempt citations, he should not be confirmed. What Leahy "feels" should mean nothing to anyone.

Jesse wrote on October 16, 2007 5:55 PM:

brantl -- FYI, Mukasey is Jewish, so calling him a Nazi strikes me as "more than a bit" offensive, though I am sure that was not your objective.

While I definitely understand all the frustration, I don't understand what people think we will get by holding up Mukasey, even if the objective is to use him as leverage on the US Atty documents. The administration isn't giving up those documents, and if the end result is that Mukasey doesn't get confirmed, then they keep Keisler AND have the added benefit of crying that the Democrats tarnished a good man, etc.

From a political standpoint, I would analogize this to the SCHIP battle on the other side. There are those Republicans who believe with great conviction that expanding SCHIP is wrongheaded and believe that the stance Bush is taking on it is principled. But virtually anyone will tell you that he and his allies have picked a completely asinine battle, one which he has overwhelmingly lost in the court of public opinion and one which is likely to hurt Republicans in 08. The only people they please are those in their die-hard small-government low-tax base. Same thing here -- there is no political upside to opposing Mukasey, and , in my opinion, no public-interest reason to do so either given what the alternative is.

Jackie Wiencus wrote on October 17, 2007 8:46 AM:

I agree with dweb. If the American public thinks Mukasey is not going to be a Cheney/Bush tool is either deluded or does not really know what's going on with this administration. NO White House nominee is to be trusted. What's up with Lahey? He has changed his mind based on a few letters? Sigh...I want my country back.