• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Looks like GWB has chosen Mukasey for AG slot

Lemon law

Lemon law

Lifer
This from yahoo news as speculation that GWB will nominate Mukasey for the AG slot.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...sNDjVbV6g04oEr1Nqs0NUE

It would seem to me that Mukasey too close ties to terrorism could be a debating point and I also suspect some conservatives could pitch a bitch about not being consulted or whatever.

But I put this out as news and wonder how others feel and about a job that can't last past
1/20/2009.
 
Early word is that he's too far to the right for the dems to like him much, but that he's pretty fair, and will likely be accepted as the best we're likely to get. Naturally, some right wings groups are screaming because he's only a semi-extremist, and they want a full extremist.
 
the dem's aren't going to like it, but george bush isn't exactly going to be appointing a liberal AG any time soon.

I think they'll all recognize that Mukasey is a lot better than some of the alternatives floating around, who'd have been DOA on the senate floor.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Just a thought....could GWB appoint ANYONE without people citicizing?
Click to expand...

if the democrats are complaining that he's too far to the right and the republicans are complaining that he's too close to the left, it seems like a winner to me.

personally, I'd have been happy with anyone that wasn't a crony appointment.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Just a thought....could GWB appoint ANYONE without people citicizing?
Click to expand...

Given a country with 300 million people, its a no.

But there will be certain litmus tests any nominee is going to have to defuse in the Senate.
And the successful nominee is going to have to get 51 votes which leaves room for 49 to be unhappy.

Nor do I think GWB will try a recess appointment in 2007. If the nomination still hangs by 1/2008, a sneaky recess appointment might be tried but would probably really outrage too many.

But thats just my take and as OP, have set up this thread to gage the opinions of others. Which means basically everyone's opinion is equally valid.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Just a thought....could GWB appoint ANYONE without people citicizing?
Click to expand...

No, but implying that this is GWB-specific is pretty naive. Every president is "criticized" for every little thing they do. GWB just happens to be one of the worst offenders with his record of poor judgment, that's all.
 
I think the reason they picked him was because he could get through the confirmation process. At this point in his Presidency that is about all Bush can hope for.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the reason they picked him was because he could get through the confirmation process. At this point in his Presidency that is about all Bush can hope for.
Click to expand...

He's the furthest to the right they can get through.

The bastards who want to appoint someone further yet to the right are just evil, IMO. We really need to fix the problem of the radical ideological organization, The Federalist Society.

They're trying to betray the history of our nation's judicial system with true believers who are taking over the system. The far righties now hold 4 seats on the Supreme Court.
 
Just a thought....could GWB appoint ANYONE without people citicizing?
Click to expand...

Yes. Roberts wasn't criticized much, he was (and is) very qualified. Even people that disagreed with some of his views (like me) supported him 100%.

He was one of, sadly, the few really excellent and qualified people bush has appointed.

I'm waiting for more info to come out on this new attorney general nominee before I jump to any conclusions and I suggest other members here do the same.
 
Originally posted by: extra
Just a thought....could GWB appoint ANYONE without people citicizing?
Click to expand...

Yes. Roberts wasn't criticized much, he was (and is) very qualified. Even people that disagreed with some of his views (like me) supported him 100%.

He was one of, sadly, the few really excellent and qualified people bush has appointed.

I'm waiting for more info to come out on this new attorney general nominee before I jump to any conclusions and I suggest other members here do the same.
Click to expand...

If the question was, without someone criticizing, probably no, because no one is a good appointee to all the many different views in the county.

If the question was, without the left criticizing him a lot, as if the left just criticizes no matter what, the answer is yes, he could, because the left doesn't do that much, IMO.

But he won't, because he's a far right guy who is happy to appoint right-wing radicals.

Sorry to negate extra's point, but I opposed very much Roberts' nomination - he's one of the 'agenda rightists' who are out to radically change our legal system, in a stealthy way.

These rightists say whatever they need to during confirmation; for example, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia both claimed to be committed not to go nuts on reversing precedents, to leave them alone except when really needed to change, and then they went on to get very high numbers of votes to reverse precedents, giving virtually no apparent concern to them. I don't trust Roberts. I would approve of other republican nominees, even if they wouldn't be my own choice.

We get this 'wah, wah' from the right on topics like this about Bush, when he doesn't get his way. The poor guy is just so abused by the democrats...
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the reason they picked him was because he could get through the confirmation process. At this point in his Presidency that is about all Bush can hope for.
Click to expand...

He's the furthest to the right they can get through.

The bastards who want to appoint someone further yet to the right are just evil, IMO. We really need to fix the problem of the radical ideological organization, The Federalist Society.

They're trying to betray the history of our nation's judicial system with true believers who are taking over the system. The far righties now hold 4 seats on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

That's rich, if we're not socialist we betray this nation. Anymore partisan gems you?d like to share?

As for the pick for AG, never heard of him.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the reason they picked him was because he could get through the confirmation process. At this point in his Presidency that is about all Bush can hope for.
Click to expand...

He's the furthest to the right they can get through.

The bastards who want to appoint someone further yet to the right are just evil, IMO. We really need to fix the problem of the radical ideological organization, The Federalist Society.

They're trying to betray the history of our nation's judicial system with true believers who are taking over the system. The far righties now hold 4 seats on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

That's rich, if we're not socialist we betray this nation. Anymore partisan gems you?d like to share?

As for the pick for AG, never heard of him.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the only partisan gem here is your idiotic comments equating everyone in the perhaps 90% to 95% of the nation to the left of this guy being "socialist".

What more brain dead kind of comment can be asked for? They really need to teach you kids some new words since 1955 in the right-wing cult lessons.

When you respond to my posts, it's like watching you go to a classical pianist concert and commenting 'nice tits'. You just degrade the discussion IMO.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Early word is that he's too far to the right for the dems to like him much, but that he's pretty fair, and will likely be accepted as the best we're likely to get. Naturally, some right wings groups are screaming because he's only a semi-extremist, and they want a full extremist.
Click to expand...

Actually, it looks like the dems are ok with him, and the far right is looking to block.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...st_pe/attorney_general

"While he is certainly conservative, Judge Mukasey seems to be the kind of nominee who would put rule of law first and show independence from the White House ? our most important criteria," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mukasey has drawn lukewarm reviews from some members of the GOP's right flank. Some legal conservatives and Republican activists have expressed reservations about Mukasey's legal record and past endorsements from liberals, and were drafting a strategy to oppose his confirmation.

 
He's from the 4th circuit, not a bad court.

I've read of of his opinions on Padilla (he drafted them), he seems pretty middle-of-the-road. On the one ruling that the Pres had Constitutional authority to detain Padilla as an unlawful enemy combatant, but on the other he ruled that Padilla had a right to counsel (which the US gov was contesting).

If Reid is praising him, I imiagine he'll be confirmed.

I'm not sure why some Repubs oppose him? Perhaps they'll actually mention some cases where they did not agree with his rulings.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Craig234
Early word is that he's too far to the right for the dems to like him much, but that he's pretty fair, and will likely be accepted as the best we're likely to get. Naturally, some right wings groups are screaming because he's only a semi-extremist, and they want a full extremist.
Click to expand...

Actually, it looks like the dems are ok with him, and the far right is looking to block.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...st_pe/attorney_general

"While he is certainly conservative, Judge Mukasey seems to be the kind of nominee who would put rule of law first and show independence from the White House ? our most important criteria," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mukasey has drawn lukewarm reviews from some members of the GOP's right flank. Some legal conservatives and Republican activists have expressed reservations about Mukasey's legal record and past endorsements from liberals, and were drafting a strategy to oppose his confirmation.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why the first word in your post is "actually", as it appears to say exactly the same thing as mine, if a different way of saying it.
 
The somewhat interesting point is, in MHO, is that Mukasey will have to do three things to get conformed.

1. Come down four square against any politicizing of the justice department. And liar or not, he will have to swear up and down that he will run the justice department impartially.

2. Mukasey will have to take the position that he will fast track certain pending Justice department cases regarding political corruption while rejecting current policy.

3. And the real biggie, he will have to confront the issue of the justice dept. policy on the Geneva convention and various GWB positions. Bottom line, GWB is likely to get kicked in the teeth when various GWB positions advocated by Gonzales suddenly are no longer the policy of the Justice Department.

But anyone not aboard point 1, 2, and 3 will never get confirmed by the senate.
 
As a New Yorker, I trust my Senator's Judgment. If Senator Schumer thinks this Mukasey guy is acceptable, then he should get the benefit of the doubt. The confirmations should not be about politics, and I think that Senator Leahy's attempt at blocking the confirmation is a big mistake. If Mukasey doesn't get on board, expect W to appoint a crony when Congress is in recess.
 
Anybody think that the rabid righties can muster 40 votes to filibuster their own president's nominee? Or how that would appear?

It'll be interesting to watch as they piss into the wind, that's for sure...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top