Posted by D. Cupples | These days, Democrats usually need 60 votes in the Senate (instead of 50% + 1) to pass a bill, because Republicans habitually filibuster Dems' bills -- thereby creating the need for 60 votes just to send a bill to a vote. Salon's Glenn Greenwald makes a good point about this:
"Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general '60-vote requirement' for everything. How, then, can this be explained?
"The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night [53 to 40 votes], approving him despite Democratic criticism....
.
"Beyond that, four Senate Democrats running for President missed the vote, and all four had announced they oppose Mukasey's confirmation. Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?"
This question spotlights the difference between "talking the talk" and "walking the walk." The frightening thing is that Mukasey's double talk on torture wasn't the only reason for skepticism ....
Under Alberto Gonzales, the Justice Department seemed to become politicized to the point that some prosecutions were reportedly brought (or not) based on whether they would affect federal elections in a way that pleased President Bush (BN-Politics-1 & BN-Politics-2).
How could our nation's chief law enforcement officer allow such a thing? Apprently, his desire to please the President was greater than his sense of duty to our justice system.
Bush Administration lawyers have been amassing power for the executive branch using the impressive-sounding label "unitary executive." This phrase doesn't appear in our Constitution -- and clashes with "separation of powers," a concept that is fundamental to the form of government established by our Constitution.
Our founding fathers had a mushy-brown taste in their mouths over the dictatorial power of kings, which is why they wanted to limit our president by dividing powers among the legislative, judicial and executive branches.
Evidence suggests that Bush Administration officials have broken laws: e.g., wiretapping Americans' phone calls and emails without warrants, withholding presidential records from Congress and the public, detaining and (likely illegally) torturing mere suspects without letting them see lawyers....
How? Former Attorney General Gonzales (or his underlings) approved such actions, giving the Administration cover in the form of written legal opinions.
Just to be clear, the Administration's stance on secret detentions and (likely illegal) torture isn't just about terrorists. It reportedly happened to at least two red-blooded Americans, whom I blogged about in August: private contractors Donald Vance (a Navy veteran) and his coworker Nathan Ertle. Apparently, they were kidnapped by U.S. officials in Iraq, secretly detained for weeks and mistreated (possibly tortured) -- all because they'd been informing the FBI about corruption on the part of the company they'd worked for. No kidding, see the AP piece.
All that the official "kidnappers" had to do was say they suspected Vance and Ertle of being terrorist-linked (or a security threat). It's kind of like the Salem witch trials: someone pointed at some poor woman and screamed "Witch," then the suspect faced a witch-test (e.g., being held under water to see if she survived -- if she did, she was a witch).
Doubts about Mukasey stemmed from the question of whether he would be likely to protect Constitutional principles even when President Bush wanted to be unhampered by them. Writing at Huffington Post, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) explained:
"The attorney general of the United States must be a defender of our constitutional rights. Because President Bush thinks he can do whatever he wants to do in the name of fighting terrorism, we need an attorney general who can explain to the president what the Constitution of this country is all about. We need an attorney general who does not believe the president has unlimited power. We need an attorney general who will tell President Bush that he is not above the law."
Why Sanders' doubts? Because Mukasey -- when acting as a federal judge -- seemed to support the questionable notion of a "unitary executive." Now that Mukasey has been confirmed, I hope he will prove that we were worrying about nothing.
See the Siren's Chronicles for good explanations, links and a video clip. See other bloggers' reactions at Memeorandum.
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Six Dems (& Lieberman) Vote to Confirm Mukasey
* Justice Department Let Contractors in Iraq Misbehave?
* Yet Another Constitutional Crisis: President Failed to Execute Laws
* White House Defends Cheney's Skirting of Law
* Cheney's Bizarre Defense re: Valerie Plame
* Inspector General Blocked Investigations into Wate & Fraud?
Comments