Skip to main content

View Diary: Once again, nobody for Attorney General. (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And even if each bad nominee (12+ / 0-)

    were rejected by the Senate, they have Keisler safely installed as "Acting" AG to carry on just as nefariously.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:06:42 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes they would. (21+ / 0-)

      This is not about being able to do better. We cannot do better. The root cause of the problem lies elsewhere.

      But should we confirm an Attorney General just for the sake of appearances?

      Why?

      And what appearance should we be giving by doing so? Is there any point in giving such an appearance if it isn't so?

      Aren't we better served by admitting what's going on, and at least being honest about this one thing?

      •  I can't see anyone in the Senate (4+ / 0-)

        knocking over that kabuki dance. Feingold is the only one I can think of who could provide that level of reality check, and the serious people don't listen to him.

        Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

        by bumblebums on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:11:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dodd's already done it, as has Sanders... (6+ / 0-)

          My guess is that the likes of Kerry, Kennedy, and (hopefully) Durbin will, too.  I'm curious as to the other IL senator's position.

          If I were treading water in the prez race, and if I were a former prez of Harvard Law Review, I just might make an issue of Mukasey.  I sure as hell wouldn't let Dodd beat me to the punch on it, and, if he did, I'd quickly join him.

          Going back to the original question, I really don't expect to see any Goopers ultimately vote nay.  I worry about Biden and DiFi, who threw in the towel on Scalito from the start.  I'd love to be proven wrong, but I still expect Mukasey to ultimately get confirmed.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:25:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  How is Sheldon Whitehouse going to live (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast, greenearth, lurks a lot

          with himself if he supports this (or any other) Bush nominee?

          Will he delude himself?  Will he rationalize it away in his own mind, and try to avoid a HAL-style mental breakdown?

          Certainly he knows better.  He knew what question to ask, so he definitely knows better.

          "They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time. [...] That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary."-Handmaid's Tale

          by JLFinch on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:13:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Rule of Law vs. Rule by Fear. (7+ / 0-)

        Indeed, confirm no one. Ever. Until the nominee acknowledges fundamental Rule of Law.

        This president took an oath to protect the constitution and to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic.

        The Constitution comes first in the oath for a reason.

        And if we lose 3,000 people EVERY YEAR to maintain our form of government, so be it. We lost almost 500,000 in WW II, so we can survive a little terrorism.

        As with the Greeks, death before giving in to fear.
        Much less to fear of this fantasy "Islamofascism," which simply does not exist.

        Dixie Chicks and Amy Winehouse. Imus and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

        by vets74 on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:59:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And frankly... (9+ / 0-)

      ...in this game of 'chicken' (confirm Mukasey or get stuck with Keisler), I say our senators should hold fast: we've nothing to lose by forcing Bush to not have a named AG.  Nothing at all.

      Read my SF novel for free. (-7.13/-7.33)

      by Shadan7 on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:10:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)

        Nothing to lose, whatsoever.  Why in the world would they go along with this?  An Attorney General who can't even come out and say the President is subject to the same laws as the rest of us?!?

        What is to be gained by compromise on this?!?

        And what would be lost?

        "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker

        by AnnCetera on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:22:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I thought otherwise (4+ / 0-)

        I thought that Mukasey would be significantly better than Keisler.  If that were true, it would make sense to confirm Mukasey.

        At this point, I have difficulty concluding that Mukasey would be better.  I think the country and the rule of law would be better served by rejecting Mukasey and any nominee for Attorney General or indeed, any position in the executive branch who cannot clearly and unequivocally state and mean that the President is not above the law and is bound by  duly enacted statutes that are not unconstitutional and that the judicial branch (and not the executive) has the final word on what is constitutional.

    •  The argument is about avoiding complicity (12+ / 0-)

      The Bush Justice Department will do what it pleases, unless and until impeachment is put back on the table.  Thus it hardly matters whether we have Mukasey or Keisler in terms of the practical effects.

      But as we've all bemoaned the collaborationist spirit of too many Congressional Dems with the Preznit's war and his depredations upon constitutional rights, we have to look at the Senate's role in this.  Should the Senate sanction and approve an AG nominee who has all but announced in advance his intention to violate his oath of office?  

      Kagro's argument is persuasive.  If Mukasey is the best Bush will nominate, he should be rejected and investigated independently.  Save the time that could be spent vetting crime family lieutenants and spend it on enforcing those damn subpoenas.

      Don't expect to live in a democracy if you're not prepared to be an active citizen.

      by Dallasdoc on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:21:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Quite simple, really (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, Simplify, greenearth

      If you approve a nominee who has made the statements that Mukasey has made, then you implicitly condone them (or at least indicate they are not sufficiently abhorrent to our Constitution as to disqualify him).

      Thus, even if Keisler is worse, he is still better because Congress is not approving him after he has advanced such a repugnant argument.

      If congress "condones" this argument, it automatically becomes more acceptable; and that is one more nail in the Coffin of the Constitution.

      10 years ago I would have bet 95% of our Senators understood such a simple thing, but now I am not so sure.  Dodd and Feingold yes; the rest of the lot is a crapshoot.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (67)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Elections (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • 2016 (28)
  • Culture (28)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Science (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Environment (24)
  • Law (20)
  • Media (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Spam (17)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (17)
  • International (15)
  • White House (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site