Wednesday, October 31, 2007
|
|
Mukasey to be Borked?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
12:37 PM
|
I'm hearing talk among conservative leaders that they now regret the fact that former solicitor general Ted Olson was not nominated to be Attorney General, and that many now believe Mukasey will be "Borked."
Mukasey was initially widely praised, but his comments regarding waterboarding may have sunk his chances of picking up the support of enough Dems. Should his nomination be blocked, it would be a stunning turn of events.
More to come...
|
|
|
Everytime I see the name Bork I become enraged. I was in college when the liberal bastards massacured him. I can still remember the stupid look on Senator Metzenbaums face. He could not even understand the answers to his own questions. Bork was brilliant. Metzenbaum was an idiot. The end was horrible. One of our best legal minds ever denied his place, not based on his abilities, professional qualities, or mind, but based in politics. No wonder the quality of our leaders and beaurocrats is in such decline. |
|
|
No this guy isn't going to be Borked--Feinstein (who should be a Republican) and Schumer (he's not going against a fellow New Yorker) wimped out big time. |
|
|
Maybe we can use a technique out of the democrat playbook that they fully support. We could insert a fork in the back of the terrorists skulls and suck out their brains! Yes! Oh wait...dead terrorists can't rat. |
|
...especially Ted Kennedy coming out against waterboarding.
Perhaps Bush should use the water technique, Kennedy used on an innocent woman. But then, dead folks can't sing. |
|
|
Which do you prefer: longboard, short, or boogie? AR-ar! What's wrong with it when used to entice information from an extremist to save lives or prevent another terrorist act? Only a Democrat would cry for it's use on a murderous creature who beheads people. I say cut off their penises so they can't have sex with those 162 virgins when they get to Terrorist Valhalla. If waterboarding is their only reason (it wouldn't be simple partisianship, huh? revenge for a POUS veto, perhaps?) then they're even dumber than I thought. Against the death penalty but for abortion: the hypocrisy of the dims at their Washington cocktail parties talking about the "barbarous torture" by those "uncouth" Republicans--poo! Off to the Kennedy compound, eh, what?! |
|
Lilly writes: "So are you saying that the President of the United States should control the Legislative and Judicial branches of government? That the Attorney General should not withhold the law and the Constitution but should be the President's yes-man?"
First of all, FYI, the Attorney General is part of the President's Cabinet. That means the AG is part of the EXECUTIVE Branch, even though he oversees the Justice Department in the Judicial Branch.
Second, and more importantly, the PRESIDENT cannot reasonably be expected to nominate an Attorney General who is going to essentially call HIM a criminal in public as a quid pro quo for getting his nomination approved. Bush would be cutting his own throat if he did that.
As I said, if Bush nominated an Attorney General who would go before Congress and tell them that waterboarding is illegal, then both Congress and the attorneys for all the detainees who were already waterboarded could insist on finding out who authorized the "illegal" waterboarding in the first place. That could reach up to the highest levels of the Administration--perhaps to the President himself. Whoever signed off on it could end up being indicted as a war criminal.
Now liberals like YOU might want to see Bush and Cheney indicted as war criminals. But Bush would be insane to allow such a scenario to unfold. It could end up putting him and Cheney in jail after they leave office.
The Assistant Attorney General can act as the Acting AG right through the end of Bush's term. And he does not believe that waterboarding is torture. That way Bush avoids the "Gotcha" of the Dems insisting that his nominee call him a criminal in public.
Bush and Cheney are NOT going to voluntarily put themselves at risk for criminal prosecution, just to satisfy the political bloodthirst of the left-wing mob. Sorry.
|
|
|
No more free rides, no more rubberstamp appointements, and finally Congress is doing its job by asking real questions of Dubya's nominees. If we have to make do without an Attorney General, so be it. Bork and Swiftboat away. |
|
|
Should be Borked - just like the original disgrace was. Mukasey is being scrutinized for the fact that he won't commit to whether or not waterboarding is torture - for one. This is a flawed nominee, in a sea of flawed Bush choices that just never seem to stop coming. Is there no end to the Republican dismantling of US dignity? |
|
roho,
You're just a crusty old hater from Alabama.
I'm sure that back in the day you were a member in good standing of the Klan as well as the John Birch Society.
You're such an anti-Semite, that you probably spell Giuliani's name, "J-e-w-l-i-a-n-i." |
|
Nobody trusts Guiliani to walk their Dog!.......
Michael B. Mukasey(Former Chief Judge of U.S. District Court of New York) is a Yale graduate that was recomended to the Supreme Court by "Chuckie Shumer" in 3/07. His son leads the white-collar criminal defense of "Bracewell & Guiliani". Sence retiring from the bench, he has made donations to both Guliani and Joe Lieberman. The ONLY way he could be more NEOCON is if he was married to Bill Krystal!!!!........If he is the pride and joy of both Guiliani and Lieberman, what do you think he has in common with both?...................A neocon desire to bomb ANY Arab state such as Iran into oblivion, and imprison anyone that questions his authority!........................Sorry, all do not agree on destrying the entire Arab world. Some of us have NO intrest in paying $5.00 a gal for gasoline so that neocons can purge the middleast of Arabs that just happen to be living in their homeland!................Next. |
|
So are you saying that the President of the United States should control the Legislative and Judicial branches of government? That the Attorney General should not withhold the law and the Constitution but should be the President's yes-man? You don't believe in the separation of powers? You think it was OK for Gonzales to tell the Congress "Geez, I forgot" 77 times? Because if your answer to all of these questions is "Yes" then you don't believe in the government our Founding Fathers gave us. You want an Executive who thumbs his nose at the American people and says "I can do anything I want to and you can't stop me". And, please, don't play the 9-11 card since both Bush and Cheney started on their megalomaniac ride before 9-11.
Mukasey sounds like Gonzales II serving Emporer Chimpus Maximus. We don't need another Gonzales. |
|
Dolly Llama writes: "Mukasey should not be borked; his name ought to be withdrawn. He will not restore honor to the DoJ, especially in light of his comments regarding waterboarding."
Mukasey CANNOT do what you want him to do. It would amount to a denunciation of his own boss (Bush/Cheney) over actions they already took to order the coercive interrogation of detainees. And it would open up any CIA personnel who engaged in those practices to criminal prosecution.
That's what the Dems are really after--using this issue to paint the Bush Administration as lawless. It's a clever political tactic. But neither Mukasey nor anyone else nominated by Bush should be expected to go along with it.
|
|
Dems like Hillary have now said that they will only vote to confirm an AG nominee who will oppose Bush's policies on interrogation of detainees. She didn't limit that opposition to the waterboarding issue either.
Logically, that means that Bush can't get any nominee approved. He is never going to nominate someone to his Cabinet who is going to publicly denounce his policies right to the Congress. The AG is part of Bush's Cabinet, after all.
If the Dems will only accept an outspoken Bush critic as Attorney General, then Bush can't nominate anybody. Let the post remain vacant and the GOP nominee for President (whoever it is) can debate interrogation policy with Hillary.
|
|
Matt Lewis wrote;
---------------------
"I'm hearing talk among conservative leaders that they now regret the fact that former solicitor general Ted Olson was not nominated to be Attorney General..."
---------------------
Matt, are these the same 'conservative leaders' who trash the idea that Rudy Giuliani would nominate good constructionist judges to the Supreme Court ?
After all, Ted Olson is Rudy Giuliani's Chairman for Judicial Appointments.
So, if these 'conservative leaders' trust Ted Olson to be Attorney General, then they should trust him to effectively advise Giuliani on judidical appointments.
|
|
|
If only the Dems would focus a fraction of their hate energy onto our real enemies |
|
All GWB needs to do is make a recess appointment, which will be good through all but the last couple weeks of his administration.
We'd love to have the Dem-controlled Senate do just that, just fires up the party and inspires us to work for Republican candidates just that much more.
Go on, Dems, we dare ya! |
|
|
from a hole in the wall but once again, no fight in those GOP senators. Is there such a thing as a mass recall? Can we have a special election to recall every senator as a group? |
|
|
His comments on waterboarding(among other things) should cause him to lose the support of all conservatives. |
|
|
|