Attorney General Michael Mukasey?

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna,
Matt Corley, Ali Frick, and Jeremy Richmond

Who Is Michael Mukasey?

Today, President Bush nominated retired federal judge Michael Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as the nation's Attorney General. Nominated as a New York federal district court judge by President Reagan in 1987, Mukasey has amassed a great deal of experience on national security issues. Over his career, he "presided over the trials of 'blind sheik' Omar Abdel Rahman and others in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing." He also handled the case against Jose Padilla, who was declared an "enemy combatant" by Bush in 2002. In the Padilla case, "Mukasey ruled that the government had the power to make the declaration but found that [he] should have access to his lawyers." Given the the urgent need to repair a disheveled Department of Justice in the wake of Gonzales's departure, Mukasey is a sound pick that should draw bipartisan support. On the most important criteria for the next Attorney General nominee -- whether the person will be "someone who would simply be doing the president's bidding" -- Mukasey has shown an independent streak that should serve him well if he maintains it in his new job. Kenneth Bialkin, a partner at the New York office at Skadden, Arps, said of Mukasey, "There is nobody who has a greater sense of integrity and conscientiousness, and nobody who would be less corruptible than he." It will now be up to the Senate to receive commitments from Mukasey that he understands what being an independent Attorney General entails, the concept of checks and balances, and the need to cooperate with congressional oversight.

A RECORD OF STANDING UP TO BUSH: Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who had previously recommended Mukasey to the White House as a Supreme Court pick, said, "While he is certainly conservative, Judge Mukasey seems to be the kind of nominee who would put rule of law first and show independence from the White House. . . .http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/

Good choice.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,114
Reaction score
8,867
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
Good choice.

yes, he sounds right up your alley:

Aspects of his record, however, are troubling. As a judge, he was too deferential to the government. In the case of Jose Padilla, who was accused of participating in a dirty bomb plot, he ruled that the president may detain American citizens indefinitely as “enemy combatants.” His dangerously narrow reading of the Constitution was rightly reversed by a federal appeals court.

In a 2004 Wall Street Journal op-ed article, Mr. Mukasey denounced the “hysteria” of Patriot Act critics, and lashed out at the American Library Association for trying to protect patrons’ privacy. He also made the dubious claim that based on the structure of the Constitution, the government should “receive from its citizens the benefit of the doubt.” And writing in The Journal this year, he promoted the truly awful idea of a separate national security court that would try suspected terrorists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/opinion/18tue1.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
But will he ever be confirmed:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said his panel would consider Mukasey "in a serious and deliberate fashion."

But he made it clear that Democrats considered access to at least some of the long-sought administration documents as essential to their evaluation of Mukasey's fitness to lead the Justice Department.

"Our focus now will be on securing the relevant information we need so we can proceed to schedule fair and thorough hearings," Leahy said. "Cooperation from the White House will be essential in determining that schedule."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,114
Reaction score
8,867
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
i can't decide whose more clever here: schumer and the senate by implying that mukasey is a good choice in order to grease the skids to get the information they want from the white house, or bush by essentially allowing the democrats to dictate the nominee and then, when they make the power play to attach his confirmation to getting the admin's documents and are forced into a "blink first" match, bush can tell the american people how the do-nothing congress is stonewalling a nominee they, themselves, approved of.
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728

He's a good choice, William. An excellent choice. Believe me.

If there's anybody who can put the nail in this administration's coffin: he can.
I think he's a wonderful appointment. He'll be an embarrassment to everybody who supports him, Democrats included. I'm all for it. But then, I want a third party, so any time I someone as transparent as this: I'm happy.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
11,961
Reaction score
2,070
Age
55
Location
NY NY
I'm not really doing much right now, but my law degree is not from a reputable school.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
11,961
Reaction score
2,070
Age
55
Location
NY NY
He's a good choice, William. An excellent choice. Believe me.

If there's anybody who can put the nail in this administration's coffin: he can.
I think he's a wonderful appointment. He'll be an embarrassment to everybody who supports him, Democrats included. I'm all for it. But then, I want a third party, so any time I someone as transparent as this: I'm happy.

What?
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
He's a good choice, William. An excellent choice. Believe me.

If there's anybody who can put the nail in this administration's coffin: he can.
I think he's a wonderful appointment. He'll be an embarrassment to everybody who supports him, Democrats included. I'm all for it. But then, I want a third party, so any time I someone as transparent as this: I'm happy.
Oh.My.God. You're not really expecting to get away with this, are you?

:ROFL:
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
11,961
Reaction score
2,070
Age
55
Location
NY NY
Oh.My.God. You're not really expecting to get away with this, are you?

:ROFL:

That's what I was thinking.

It sounds like he originally sincerely thought it was a good choice and instead of saying "ooooops, looks like I may have made a mistake" he is now doing some type of end around run for the goal like with a few figure eights.

But maybe I'm misreading it.

Nothing more fun than when BoP makes a mistake, gets called on it, and then refuses to admit it. Especially when Haskins is involved.

It should be good for 8-10 pages.

But maybe I've misread the entire thing.

If I have...ooops.

:Shrug:
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
11,961
Reaction score
2,070
Age
55
Location
NY NY
Oh Billy.

I guess after all this time you still don't know me. I'm saddened by this.

Still, it's been fun.

Yep.

Let the dancing begin.

It must be sad going through life not being able to say "Oooops, I goofed."

Watch how easy this is and how much bandwidth can be saved.

"Oooops, I didn't read as much about the guy as I should have. Thanks, Haskins for pointing out those things to me. I now amend my statement to say 'Crap choice' and looks like more of the same 'ole same 'ole from the Bush administration."

But no.

We'll hear the whole story of how you were being sarcastic with "good choice" and you didn't really like the choice or there was subtext or god knows what else.

Always enjoyable, BoP.

Always enjoyable.
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
Yep.

Let the dancing begin.

It must be sad going through life not being able to say "Oooops, I goofed."

Watch how easy this is and how much bandwidth can be saved.

"Oooops, I didn't read as much about the guy as I should have. Thanks, Haskins for pointing out those things to me. I now amend my statement to say 'Crap choice' and looks like more of the same 'ole same 'ole from the Bush administration."

But no.

We'll hear the whole story of how you were being sarcastic with "good choice" and you didn't really like the choice or there was subtext or god knows what else.

Always enjoyable, BoP.

Always enjoyable.

Whatever, Billy. I stand by what I said: he's a good choice.

Unlike you, I have completely given up on the this Administration, the two party system and the idea that anybody on Capitol Hill gives a crap about freedom any more. I posted the article; did you actually read it?

No. Of course not. Nobody did.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
11,961
Reaction score
2,070
Age
55
Location
NY NY
Whatever, Billy. I stand by what I said: he's a good choice.

Yeah, right.

Your good choice went from sincerely thinking it was a good choice AS CLEARLY SHOWN BY YOU QUOTING SCHUMER the saying "good choice" to now thinking it's a good choice because it backs up some third party garbage or something and it will be the death of the administration.

You're hilarious, BoP in your inability to just say "Ooops."

But I'll let Haskins and/or rob handle it from here.

Have no desire to string out your inability to say "ooops" for 10 pages.

Especially when I know you have such a problem with it.

I'll let you off the hook.

I'm sure you meant "good choice" in whatever way you say you meant "good choice."
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
Yeah, right.

Your good choice went from sincerely thinking it was a good choice AS CLEARLY SHOWN BY YOU QUOTING SCHUMER the saying "good choice" to now thinking it's a good choice because it backs up some third party garbage or something and it will be the death of the administration.

You're hilarious, BoP in your inability to just say "Ooops."

But I'll let Haskins and/or rob handle it from here.

Have no desire to string out your inability to say "ooops" for 10 pages.

Especially when I know you have such a problem with it.

I'll let you off the hook.

I'm sure you meant "good choice" in whatever way you say you meant "good choice."


Everything in the NYT editorial is in the article I posted. For Chrissake, read it.


But you're right, I made several mistakes: I originally posted the article in its near entirety, but the mods don't like it when I do that - I've gotten a pm about it - so I thought the better of it and shortened it, cutting it where I shouldn't have. Secondly, I had an exclamation point after good choice, and changed it because I thought it would be - I don't know - cooler that way. And thirdly, I thought at this juncture, people would know me well enough to know how I would feel about an appointment like that, so I thought it would be obvious that I was being somewhat facetious.

But they are my mistakes and I'm sorry. You can't blame the audience.

Oh but I'm not being entirely facetious: he is a good choice. A great choice.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
11,961
Reaction score
2,070
Age
55
Location
NY NY
Sounds good, BoP.

;)

"You can bullshit the fans, but you can't bullshit the players."
William H. Thrilly 7th
1988
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Well, he is a good choice. Seriously.

A president has the right to choose an attorney general who reflects his own political philosophy. Since I disagree with almost every aspect of Bush's political beliefs, I would hardly expect him to appoint someone that I personally approve of. It's the job of Congress (theoretically) to put a check on any president's more extreme choices.

But what's important is to have an AG who is conversant with the law, dedicated to upholding the constitution, and ethically independent.

Gonzalez, I believe, saw his job as primarily a tool to help advance Bush's political agenda. Not, what is the law, but more how do we bend it to make it work for our partisan concerns? Plus, he didn't appear overly bright, but that turned out to be a good thing in eventually getting him out.

There's nothing wrong with a principled, intelligent conservative as AG. Until the next election.
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
Well, he is a good choice. Seriously.

A president has the right to choose an attorney general who reflects his own political philosophy. Since I disagree with almost every aspect of Bush's political beliefs, I would hardly expect him to appoint someone that I personally approve of. It's the job of Congress (theoretically) to put a check on any president's more extreme choices.

But what's important is to have an AG who is conversant with the law, dedicated to upholding the constitution, and ethically independent.

Gonzalez, I believe, saw his job as primarily a tool to help advance Bush's political agenda. Not, what is the law, but more how do we bend it to make it work for our partisan concerns? Plus, he didn't appear overly bright, but that turned out to be a good thing in eventually getting him out.

There's nothing wrong with a principled, intelligent conservative as AG. Until the next election.

He's not principled, though, in the sense that his take on federal power is way over the line. For a brief synopsis, I suggest The NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL that Mr. Haskins posted.

Sorry about the caps, RC.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
11,961
Reaction score
2,070
Age
55
Location
NY NY
He's not principled, though, in the sense that his take on federal power is way over the line.

But you said, sincerely, "good choice" in your first post?

Oh, I forgot...you made a mistake, wouldn't admit the mistake and then backtracked and I let you off the hook in the interest of saving bandwith.

Sorry 'bout that.

Carry on.
:)
 
Last edited:

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
He's not principled, though, in the sense that his take on federal power is way over the line.
But he is. His views are just different from yours or mine. I also don't care much for the views of John Roberts, either, but I wouldn't term him "unprincipled."

I didn't say I liked him or think he would make a great AG. I just want someone in that office who is not a political hack, and you can hardly expect Bush to nominate a liberal now, can you?
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
But he is. His views are just different from yours or mine. I also don't care much for the views of John Roberts, either, but I wouldn't term him "unprincipled."

I didn't say I liked him or think he would make a great AG. I just want someone in that office who is not a political hack, and you can hardly expect Bush to nominate a liberal now, can you?


It's not that he's not a liberal.

My biggest problem with him is frankly, an outrageous defense of the Patriot Act. But since everybody - Republicans and Democrats alike - seem to be in support of it, I've pretty much given up on anybody on either side of the two party aisle even attempting to do the right thing by dismantling it, save for maybe, Paul. I see Mukasey for what he is: another tool for huge government and the strangling of American freedoms. And whether he's liberal or conservative matters not an iota. It's all the same now. To hell with the Constitution.

Clinton has at least unveiled one decent initiative that might actually benefit average Americans which is her health care plan, a plan I thought was quite reasonable. But in truth, nothing any of them says or does anymore matters other perhaps their chilling choices and outrageous mistakes which may actually usher in a third party.

I feel like I'm about the only person here who is really alarmed about the Patriot Act. Mukasey is a good choice to do more than abide by it; he's a good choice to see to its expansion, and you know, he'll have bipartisan support.

Maybe he has his good points, but I guess I'm at the point where I'm so bitter about what's happening that it's hard for me to see a gray area anymore.