Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 17, 2007
Amanda Carpenter :: Townhall.com Columnist
Bush Nominates Mukasey as Consensus Attorney General
by Amanda Carpenter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


President Bush nominated retired judge Michael Mukasey to replace the outgoing attorney general Alberto Gonzales amid threats from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) that Democrats would block former solicitor general Ted Olson from the post.

When Bush announced the nomination this morning, he cited Mukasey’s experience working on terror-related cases, namely his work prosecuting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Commonly known as the “Blink Sheikh,” Rahman attempted to bomb the World Trade Center and several other New York landmarks in 1995.

Mukasey also shepherded the murder prosecution of Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested in 2002 who aided terrorists and sought to detonate a “dirty bomb” inside the United States. After Padilla was convicted, Mukasey recommended that Congress pass new laws to streamline the justice system with the military’s work on the war on terror.

In light of the busy Senate schedule filled with budget work and Iraq debate, Mukasey’s nomination is considered a compromise with the Democratic Senate.

Last week, Reid warned Bush in a written statement: “Ted Olsen will not be confirmed. I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general."

Reid indicated support for Muskasey’s nomination Monday morning. His office released a statement: “I’m glad President Bush listened to Congress and put aside his plan to replace Alberto Gonzales with another partisan administration insider.”

Reid also praised Mukasey’s “strong professional credentials” and said “a man who spent 18 years on the federal bench surely understands the importance of checks and balances and knows how to say no to president when he oversteps the Constitution.”

Before today’s nomination, Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y) encouraged President Bush to nominate Mukasey to the Supreme Court.

The left-leaning Alliance for Justice also recommended Muskasey to the Supreme Court in 2005.

In a press conference on Monday morning, Schumer told reporters: “The nomination of Judge Mukasey certainly shows a new attitude in the White House. Instead of simply throwing down the gauntlet, they are trying to meet us part of the way in choosing someone who by reputation and in his career has shown fidelity to rule of law above conservative politics.”

Schumer said, “The Mukasey nomination means that confrontation should not be in the front of anybody's mind right now.” Schumer would not rule out voting against Mukasey’s confirmation, but added, “I think I am open-minded and hopeful he will satisfy the concerns that I have and other Democrats have and he will become the consensus nominee.”

In the past, Mukasey received scattered criticism from social conservatives for his 1994 decision not to grant political asylum to a Chinese man who fled China because he was being persecuted by Chinese authorities for defying the country’s one-child per couple, forced abortion rule.

Judge Mukasey wrote in Dong v. Slattery that immigration law would not permit political asylum. Mukasey later participated in an appellate decision in 2006 that ordered further proceedings for women who sought asylum based on forced sterilization.

Soon after the president’s announcement, Republican Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.), Judiciary committee Ranking Member Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.), Senate Republican Conference Chairman Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.) expressed support in written statements for Mukasey.

Ed Meese, president of The Heritage Foundation, issued a statement of overwhelming support for Bush's choice: "Judge Mukasey is an excellent nomination for attorney general. His past experience in the Department of Justice as assistant U.S. attorney and his tenure as chief judge of a major federal district court give him the necessary background for this position. His demonstrated capability in the handling of numerous criminal cases, including those involving terrorist acts, provides evidence of his fairness and professional legal ability. He enjoys an excellent personal reputation and will provide strong leadership for the Department of Justice."

Recently, Mukasey has served on the Justice Advisory Committee of Republican presidential candidate and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and has donated $1,200 to his presidential campaign.

Mukasey also donated $1,000 to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) reelection fund in 2006, according to campaign finance reports.
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Amanda Carpenter is the author of “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton,” published in October 2006.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Amanda Carpernter. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Disgusting !!!!
How pathetic to hear these smug, condescending assholes like Dirty Harry and Just as Dirty Leahy celebrating Bushes caving into them. This is DISGRACEFUL!! If he gets to nominate another Supreme Court judge and caves in to these dickheads, I'll never, no make that NEVER, EVER, EVER, vote Republican again. Shameful.

Which ones?
The "dickheads" who control the Congress and can reject nominees? LOL

Yep
Yes, snowguy, those are the dickheads he is referring to. The role of the Senate is "advise and consent" not "approve of for political reasons" or "fry over coals because they are anti-abortion". You libs always seem to think that the dems get to pick nominees for every president be they in the majority or minority. The GOP went along on Ruth Ginsburg, for heaven's sake! 97-3, while refusing to answer most of the questions! After the attempted smearing of Bork and Thomas, no less. So, yeah, pardon the conservatives when we see the Republicrat President nominating Chuck Schumer's boy and get pizzed off. We have good memories and remember just how "bipartisan" the dems are when they hold the cards.

Ya, those dickheads
The ones who hate Bush so much that they have the ignorance to reject people before they're even nominated. The same dickheads who tried to impugn the dignity and morality of Roberts and Alito. Dirty Harry and Killer Kennedy looking down their noses while sitting on their moral high horses. That, snowguy, is what should make EVERYONE LOL.

This is more "bend over" from Bush.
He should have just placed who he wanted as an "acting" and told chickie cheese and company to stick it.

that's what you get with a weak Presiden

Bush has been overall a dismal failure as President, his public approval rating reflects that, and the result is that he is politically impotent.

Forget the Democrats. If Bush were a strong leader the Democrats coudn't hamstring him.

The problem in Washington is not obstructionism from the Democrats, the problem is that we have a failure of a President who is now a PINO.

(President in Name Only)

more comments
CVN65 said:

"The GOP went along on Ruth Ginsburg, for heaven's sake! 97-3, while refusing to answer most of the questions! After the attempted smearing of Bork and Thomas, no less. "


True. But before worrying so much about what the other team is doing, how about the home team?

Instead of nominating a solid jurist committed to the constitution, Bush wanted to put Harriet Miers on the bench?


I would say let's clean up our own house before grousing so much about the other team.




And, to illustrate just how bad things are, there is a lot for a person who believes in the rule of law to be HAPPY about as far as George W. Bush's political impotence goes.

Otherwise his nation-destroying immigration anarchy policy would have become law.

EB
"If he gets to nominate another Supreme Court judge and caves in to these dickheads, I'll never, no make that NEVER, EVER, EVER, vote Republican again. Shameful."


Don't throw out the good Republicans with the bad.

Just don't vote for a phony like Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc.

for bot_feeder
bot_feeder writes: "If Bush were a strong leader the Democrats coudn't hamstring him."

Bush was a strong leader, and he got most of his anti-terrorism program through Congress without filibusters.

But Bush expended his entire political capital on the Iraq War, and now he has none left.

The Iraq War was like a malignant tumor on the Bush presidency, that grew and grew and grew until it destroyed everything else.

Mukasey is a Giuliani favorite
Mukasey was one of the legal advisers to the Giuliani campaign, and he and Rudy are reportedly friends.

If Giuliani wins the Presidency, Mukasey is the type of guy that Rudy will nominate to the Supreme Court. In fact, he may even nominate Mukasey himself.

Like Giuliani, Mukasey is super-tough on terrorism (subject to the rule of law). But he's an agnostic on those hot-button social issues like Roe v. Wade. He has \no track record on those kinds of issues.

Overreaction
I think that the posts here reflect overreaction. Mukasey should be fine notwithstanding the support from Chuckie Schumer and Harry Reid. Mukasey has a certain standing in the New York legal community that insulates him from attack by Chuckie Schumer in a way that Ted Olsen's standing in the Washington D.C. legal community doies not.

As for future U.S. Supreme Court nominations to conservatove taste, does anyone mind explaining, if you can, what turning on Republicans in the 2006 election did to advance that goal? You need both a majority in the Senate and the willingness to engage in a nomination fight.

Pragmatism a nice change of pace
for this WH. The Justice Dept...which serves all of us, not just the base of the sitting President...is a shambles, with vacancies in five of its' top post. It is refreshing that Bush has picked someone who will get confirmed, and get to work at fixing Justice.

bot_feeder and others
I personally would not have minded having a non-lawyer nominated to the court as long as I was assured that they would interpret the Constitution as it is written and not as they need to establish their own agenda. However, Harriet Myers was not assurance of that. She was a lawyer and in fact, a DC lawyer. She probably would have been guaranteed to advance Bush's social agenda while at the same time ignoring real constitutional issues. I do not want to get rid of a bunch of activist liberal judges just to replace them with a bunch of activist social judges.

Personally I would like to see Brown from CA nominated, but it looks like that will never happen.

CALIGULA NAMED A HORSE …….
The divinely anointed Emperor, Georgus Simplus will show all the stupid Plebes that elected him who is in charge and what happens when they refuse to lie down. Don’t like little Alburtus Weaselus, how would you like an Attorney General handpicked by Chuckus Socialistus? As this administration winds down conservatives should stand by to be crucified. Just as Caligula brought ruin to the Romans for not loving him, this mad boy Emperor will destroy the Republican Party for not embracing vacuous sham of “compassionate conservatism”.

Mukasey is with it
Check out his editorial in the WSJ
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010505

this is an example insightful analysis with no punches pulled. Some of the posters here might take a lesson here how to express themselves instead of emotional tripe. Of course not all.

Another enlightening piece by mukasey
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010615

Interesting that among other things I learned that was library records that nailed the uni-bomber. Yet, many have over exaggerated this business about checking with a warrant library usage where there is probable cause

no nothings
In reading some of these post, my first impulse was to take some of the writers and put them in room with moveon and kos and let them fight out until they all go to the opposite of heaven

All these florid posts indicate total ignorance; shooting from the hip; not one of the posts criticized the appointment based on researching the guy to see what his record was. Any moron can chatter like monkeys; but we did evolve to have a brain and examine before we chatter. Excuse me, some of us evolved.

Len
Thanks for the links. They were very enlightening.
I was one of those that was in shock when I found that President Bush would nominate someone that Chuckie Schumer and Dirty Harry would approve of. I just knew it certainly couldn't be good for the country as a whole, but in reading his papers, he looks like the man for the job.
Thanks for your input

for Phil Byler
Phil Byler writes: "You need both a majority in the Senate and the willingness to engage in a nomination fight."

I agree 100%,
but I admit that's not a popular position around here.

What it boils down to is the difference between a political MOVEMENT and a national political PARTY.

A political movement can be highly effective as a smaller, even regional, organization of ideologically motivated activists. The evangelical Christians, for example. And that's what they seem to want the GOP to be--a smaller but ideologically purer movement.

But a national political PARTY has to be broad-based across the country to command a true majority. Even at the expense of ideological purity.

This is the point in the discussion where some conservatives say "What about Reagan?" I lived through the Reagan presidency as an adult. And folks, Reagan was nowhere near as ideologically rigid as some of today's ideologues on townhall.com are.

Reagan did not take America into any major wars. He withdrew our troops from Lebanon after the terrorist attack there, rather than risk embroiling the U.S. in a counterinsurgency war in the Middle East.

And Reagan never attempted to overturn the social safety net: He never proposed repealing Social Security or Medicare, which remained intact throughout his administration.

And those things helped Reagan keep his majority appeal, to help him achieve the things he cared about much more--such as reviving the U.S. economy.

SO THIS GUY LOCKED UP ONE.........
MOSLEM. That does not me him a standard bearer of the conservative movement. Why do you think Chuckie S., Rudy Mussolini, and all the east coast interests are so pleased? I would urge all RINOS, Bonesmen, and incipient CFR members to revisit the November election. If you can figure out how to gain control of the House and Senate by double crossing rank and file Republican voters in the south and west, you can reshape the political landscape. If not, you can finally destroy the Reagan coalition and return the Republican Party to its perpetual pygmy status of the 60’s and 70’s.

SO THIS GUY LOCKED UP ONE .........
FANATIC. That does not me him a standard bearer of the conservative movement. Why do you think Chuckie S., Rudy Mussolini, and the east coast interests are so pleased? I would urge all RINOS, Bonesmen, and incipient CFR members to revisit the November election. If you can figure out how to gain control of the House and Senate by double crossing rank and file Republican voters in the south and west you can reshape the political landscape. If not, you can finally realize your dream of destroying the Reagan coalition and returning the Republican Party to its perpetual pygmy (but clubby) status of the 60’s and 70’s.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.