View Story | 117 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
missed that.
Please help Hillary with a small donation
by masslib on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:50:55 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
He issued a statement yesterday saying he couldn't decide.
It provided nice cover for Schumer & Feinstein.
by Elwood Dowd on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:56:13 AM PDT
has been pretty consistent in his opinion that the president has a right to his/her own cabinet appointments. That's not new for Feingold at all, though I realize it's very frustrating for some people here.
I'm not shocked at his current position. It's consistent with his past positions on presidential appointments.
by Spit on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:15:58 PM PDT
It's like Kagro's been saying - if Feingold can't understand that Bush's nominations are just a different category than those from previous presidents, he doesn't have the judgment of a damn turnip. Ok, the turnip part is me, but Kagro's point that this is just different means that supposed consistency is in fact abdication of responsibility.
by MissLaura on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:18:18 PM PDT
to some extent. On the other hand, frankly, I'm not nearly as worked up about Mukasey getting through as many folks here, mostly because I think the case can be made that it's just as damaging to the Constitution (or even moreso) to have Bush simply running the AG office for 14 months through surrogates, without congress approving anybody. In this case, I think we're just sort of fucked either way, bluntly.
Feingold figures the constitutional principle, as he reads it, stands even in the case of an out of control executive. I don't agree with him entirely (particularly in his reading), but I also can't condemn that entirely, either, even while I find it incredibly frustrating sometimes.
by Spit on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:31:52 PM PDT
in which I'm not so much worked up about Mukasey getting confirmed as I am about the individual Dems voting for it. I'm not sure of the logic behind this position, or if there is such a logic, but basically my thinking is, he's going to get through, and on an instrumental level that might not suck any more than the alternatives, so I'm not so much focused on him specifically. But I still think it's an example of horrifically bad judgment by any Dem who votes for him, and I'm pissed at them for that.
by MissLaura on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:44:37 PM PDT
Bush and his surrogates are going to be running the AG office unchecked with or without Mukasey holding the title.
With Mukasey holding the title, the already underperforming Congress gets time to throw up its hands at the ongoing DOJ disaster, and claim the "new AG" needs time to work on the problems.
Without Mukasey holding the title, there is no such excuse, and the ongoing DOJ disaster remains on their plate, to either fester or be addressed on their watch, where it belongs.
The DOJ needs to be put in receivership, and pretending all's well by sweeping it under some new AG's rug just doesn't cut it.
Gonzales' resignation was taken by this Congress as a signal that the DOJ wasn't going to present a problem for them any more. Mukasey's confirmation -- indeed anyone's confirmation -- will only compound that.
As soon as there's a name with the title, Congress will wash its hands of the problems there, except to the extent that individual Members can generate some positive press by bashing the new sucker, or the DOJ in general if it's "too soon" to hit Mukasey.
Feingold's reasoning here is consistent, no doubt. But consistency has to be worth something in order to be commendable.
If you're sitting with both thumbs up your ass when someone tosses you a ball, do you keep your thumbs where they are for the sake of "consistency?"
by Kagro X on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:42:18 PM PDT
He blathered on about how this was the best nominee we could expect. And then he played Hamlet.
Disgusting.
by Elwood Dowd on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 01:29:25 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 117 comments