posted by Damozel |
The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin calls him "the AG Bush needs." (Froomkin) Froomkin
suggests that by picking Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, Bush is
"prioritizing" in order to put in place someone who will support "the radical and unprecedented expansion of executive power that
has become the hallmark of his administration....Michael B. Mukasey fits the bill." (Froomkin) Others suggest that he is just bowing to the inevitable or trying to avoid a partisan struggle (WaPo).
President Bush opted to try to avoid a confirmation fight to be attorney general, concluding that the retired federal judge shares his approach to national security issues, but without the appearance of partisanship, administration officials and others close to the White House said yesterday. (WaPo; links in original)
As for me, I remain bemused that even an
appointment with significant bipartisan support (keep reading)
continues to appear to some as a legitimate occasion for partisan
disputes and party games.
After all: Harry Reid---Harry Reid!---has evidently "signaled" that "Mukasey's confirmation is not likely to be a problem."(WaPo) "Twenty minutes after Bush announced the nomination, Reid issued a
statement praising Mukasey for his "strong professional credentials and
a reputatation for independence." (WaPo) That should be that then, right?
Well, not quite:
Other senior Democrats said they will seek to link Mukasey's confirmation with investigations they have launched into his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, suggested that to ensure a speedy process, the White House should give the panel access to long-sought witnesses and documents related to some of the controversies that engulfed the Justice Department during Gonzales's tenure, including the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and warrantless wiretapping. (WaPo)
I admire Senator Leahy, but---assuming I correctly undertstand what he is saying here--- this seems like a bad idea to me. The Dems have won the fight to remove Gonzalez, so my own wish would be to---yes---move on, at least as regards this appointment. This particular move seems impolitic to me, since it bears a certain resemblance to other forms of pressure that the law prohibits.
"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."...Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, warned Democrats against such a strategy. "In making this selection, I think President Bush has made a very . . . deliberate effort to choose someone who would not be controversial," he said. "It is my hope that we will not get bogged down in preconditions on his nomination."(WaPo)
In fact, just to be clear on this point: I don't want Leahy & Co. to carry on in this vein. I want justice in Justice as much as the next Democrat, but I am sick to death of political tactics and ploys. Just get this guy confirmed so he can get on with the job of setting things to rights. "[T]he Justice Department has been rocked by the departure of almost every senior official. The department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility are conducting a wide-ranging internal probe." (WaPo)
Or am I missing something? No, I don't think I am.
By several informed accounts, the finalists for the job were Mukasey, Olson and George Terwilliger, another former deputy attorney general. White House officials said Mukasey's name had been suggested by several lawmakers, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), as well as by lawyers inside and outside the White House. They said former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R), a close friend and associate of Mukasey's, had nothing to do with the selection.....
Over the three-week period from Gonzales's resignation to Mukasey's nomination, the White House engaged in an unprecedented level of consultation with key Democrats such as Schumer, Democrats said.
"At least some in the White House had a different attitude," Schumer said. He said he spoke with Fielding at least four times about the pending nomination....
Some conservatives said Bush caved to Reid -- choosing "surrender," in the words of conservative activist Richard Viguerie -- though some close to the White House said they believe Bush was leaning toward Mukasey at that point anyway.
"They have decided to follow in the model of Dick Thornburgh following Ed Meese, finding a good, strong, well-regarded lawyer who can get bipartisan support rather than having one more flash point with the United States Senate," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who was chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan. "They chose pragmatic conservatism over pure orthodoxy."
Anticipating disappointment, the White House arranged for Mukasey to meet with conservatives over the weekend. They declined to identify who they were, though former attorney general Edwin Meese III confirmed that he met with Mukasey in the past week and said he came away impressed. (WaPo; links in original)
Froomkin has compiled in his usual helpful fashion a compendium of opinions suggesting that Mukasey holds views on homeland security, the Patriot Act, and other security issues that Dems such as I would find unpalatable.
Philip Shenon and Benjamin Weiser write in the New York Times that a review of Mukasey's record "shows that he would defend the administration on the issue that matters most to the president, national security. . .
"Mr. Mukasey, 66, now in private practice in Manhattan, has repeatedly spoken out to support the administration's claim to broad powers in pursuing terrorist threats, especially in conducting electronic surveillance of terrorism suspects and in imprisoning them before trial."As a judge after the Sept. 11 attacks, he ordered the detention of young Muslim men as so-called material witnesses in terrorism cases, decisions that were criticized by immigration lawyers and praised by the Justice Department.
"Mr. Mukasey has endorsed provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the law passed by Congress after 9/11 to grant wide new law-enforcement power to the executive branch. The measure has been universally condemned by civil liberties groups."
Amy Goldstein and Dafna Linzer write in The Washington Post: "Mukasey's willingness to defend aggressive legal anti-terrorism measures before a tough audience helps to explain his appeal to President Bush."
Marc Ambinder writes for the Atlantic: "Make no mistake: this is about policy. The president cares more about his 'terrorist surveillance program,' national security letters, and aggressive anti-terrorism prosecutions that he does about where a nominee goes to church or how many abortion-related cases he has argued. . . .
"Mukasey is fairly unique among federal judges for having anticipated and sanctioned many of the arguments the Bush Justice Department and David Addington employed to justify detaining enemy combatants. . . .
"In short, he is, in the eyes of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the perfect advocate for the President's national security policies. He is the perfect foil for Democrats -- the administration, anticipating the fight about the renewal of the covert surveillance statute, wants the best team possible."(Froomkin)
The reason I'm not exercised over any of this is that we've reached that point in the time of humankind when I would just be grateful for an AG who is acknowledged by people from my own party to be competent. I don't expect Bush to appoint anyone who holds the same views I do and in fact, it would be pointless for me or other Democrats to insist. The system is designed to allow the chief executive to make political appointments to the executive branch. I realize this.
It's a pointed comment on the Bush Administration that we've reached the point where the only thing I stipulate for in an AG is competence and the appearance of propriety.
But I can assure my fellow Dems that I don't consider preventing a Republican president, even if it's Bush, from picking an AG who shares his views to be part of their oversight function....
RELATED BN-POLITICS LINKS:
Justice Department [entire topic!]
- Is Reid to Blame for Polarizing Congress on Iraq?
- Issues of Mass Distraction: Ruckus over Reid's Criticism
- Shush, Harry Reid. You'll Hurt Their Feelings!
LINKS:
Comments