Who would be preferable to Leahy as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee?

[cali]

I'm seeing a ton of bitching about Leahy. So who do you want to see holding that gavel.

I think Leahy is indeed doing a good job and that there actually have been results from the Judiciary committee in the last 8 months. No, it's certainly not perfect, but some of the claims that he's in collusion with the admin, or spineless are unfounded.

But if you find him so lacking, who, realistically speaking would you like to see replace him?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Eliot Spitzer

Well, not very realistic in the near future...

[jlake]

2. Kerry or Boxer NT

[Inuca]

4. Love them both, BUT

neither is a committee member. Leahy is OK right where he is.

[itsrobert]

3. Boxer

n/t

[cali]

7. barbara boxer is not a lawyer

and yes, it's vital that the chair of that committee be an attorney, and preferably one with experience. She's also a great environment and public works chair, and that's where her interests lie.

[Kermitt Gribble]

8. I love Barbara Boxer but,

I think I'd rather she stay on the Environmental and Public Works committee.

I'd have to agree with Kerry if there were to be a change.

[karynnj]

14. Kerry's not on that committee - and is needed on the committees he is on

I can see that he would be great. Had the Democrats, from the beginning, fought Alito as too extreme because of ideas like unitary President as Kerry did - he might not be there. The SC was going to get someone pro-life, but they should have fought to get one better on other issues. His questioning would have likely been awesome. His genuine concern for the constitution and his consistent stand on the Geneva convention would make him someone to trust. In fact, many of us thought that Kerry was so good on so many things, that we wanted him in a higher position in 2004 (and even afterwards).

But, Leahy is very very good on these principles too - his speech before the torture bill was voted was great. I think he is doing a great job. No one could have made Schumer and Feinstein vote against differently. If he were unable to chair the committee, Feingold, Kennedy and Durbin are on that committee. (Durbin is the whip, so that make him not available.)

Kerry has been on the SFRC and it was his first, second and third choice when asked when first elected. He chairs the subcommittee that overseas the middle-east and near east and terrorism. I can't think of anyone better in that position.

He is also on the commerce committee where he chairs the subcommittee on technology and science and he chairs the Small Business Committee - in both of these hw has dealt with global warming. On Small Business, he has acted to call Bush on many things and he put together legislation to aid the businesses hurt by Katrina (it is Snowe/Vitter, because he took his name off when it was being voted to get the Republican votes - it then passed with over 80 votes.)

He is also about the only liberal/left voice on the Finance Committee. Consider that all bills that change the tax code go there - he is needed. (Consider that things like any health care bill with have to go through that committee.)

[Kermitt Gribble]

20. I'm not against Leahy

I was just suggesting Kerry if there were to be a change. Thank you, though, that was a great and very informative post!

[MADem]

5. No one. He's the best goddamn chair that body has had in EONS.

I cannot believe that some rubes think a guy who can piss off the Vice President so much that he loses it in the Senate chamber, in the presence of witnesses that INCLUDE lowly, pissant GOP AIDES and staffers (who, ironically, finked on him to the press) to the point where he said "GO FUCK YOURSELF" clearly and audibly, isn't effective?

And the fact that Leahy laughed his ass off at the whiner...well, I don't know what some people want.

If people are suggesting that Leahy be COMPELLED to force people to vote a certain way, they'd better fucking rethink their priorities and maybe go retake American History and Politics One-oh-One, because if they didn't get an F in the course, they deserved it.

You don't like the way your Senator votes? You work for his or her opponent. You don't advocate "mini-dictatorships" within the deliberative bodies, where the chair FORCES votes from party members--especially not on a committee vote--that's just bullshit. See, that is what the REPUBLICANS do.

The Democrats have that "Of, by and for the people" thing DOWN. It's up to the people to remove legislators that don't serve them well, it isn't up to the chairs or leaders to compel them to do your bidding.

[cali]

9. Thanks MADem

I'm perplexed about the dislike so many DUers have for Leahy. When it comes to Human Rights and Civil Liberties, he's done as much as anyone in the Senate. He's reliably anti-corruption- the reason Cheney lost it was because of Leahy's persistance about Halliburton.
I'm sure there are a couple of others who could do as good a job. I can't think of anyone who would be better.

Honestly if people think Leahy is spineless and useless, they're either ignorant or they have some strange agenda.

[MADem]

12. Here is the sad truth of much of the advocacy you see here.

There is a subset of people who are so 'lockstep' in their ideology that they believe that anyone who doesn't follow their agenda is a Party Traitor. Ironically, these are the people, often as not, who are eager to dump the party anytime their little ideological feelings get hurt. They sometimes post the "Why should I STAAAAY?" whines (my attitude: Close the door behind you; quickly now--we're conserving energy that we need for NOV 08).

Now, back to that 'agenda' these locksteppers have. They actually believe that their AGENDA is more important than the political process--that to get what THEY want, it's "OK" to wipe your ass on the Constitution, to abrogate representative government, to use dictatorial methods to get their own way. In other words, it's "OK" to pull a Tom DeLay, because see, we're "true blue, fair and faithful" and the other team is "bad, evil and mendacious." They just can't grasp the 'two wrongs don't make a right' philosophy--if it is wrong when DeLay or McConnell or Frist or Specter does it, it's wrong when WE do it.

Unfortunately, that takes an ability to actually consider the importance of the process, and of 'rule of law.' It takes thought. It takes understanding.

There's not enough of that going around up in here, though, lately.

[greeneyedboy]

17. exactly. there's a thing called GOOD GOVERNANCE that these folks don't understand. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Absolutely! I've been saying this for a while, and...

often as not getting slammed for it. DU does NOT represent mainstream Democrats as I see them in my own little world or any other that I know of.

There's an extraordinary naivite combined with an arrogance of faith in going around in some circles, and many attitudes I see here are some that I rarely see out in meatspace. If I do, they are the fringe and completely irrelevant. It's not just here, of course, and too many leftwing bloggers and sites seenm to share these fantasies of instant gratification-- if the new Democratic Congress doesn't do exactly what I want the way I want it to be done, it is a failure.

Not so- the world doesn't work that way, and certainly not Washington.

[MADem]

23. This is the far left end of the tent, by and large.

There are more mainstream folk here, too, but they often get bulllied or shouted down if they dare to be too 'centrist.' Like that's a crime. As a consequence, they don't pop their heads up too often--who needs to be slugged with DINO or other invective for one's opinion?

The absolutists (all guns in all circumstances are bad, the military sucks and we don't need one, e.g.), tiresome as they may be, do get lotsa excercise wagging those fingers, though!

The "Other Team's" site, that rhymes more or less with DweebieFuckwit, has the same sort of ideologues on it, from what little I've seen of that place. The main difference is that their guys are just MEANER when it comes to human issues. Over there, they wanna keep THEIR money, boot out all the brownskinned 'furriners,' even the ones who were born here, they want JEEBUS to be the law of the land, and for people who want less government, they sure want to tell us what we CANNOT do.

At least even the rabid, far-out acolytes here want things like peace, ending hunger, sheltering the homeless, that kind of thing. The GOALS are more worthy here, overall, even if there are a lot of flaky views on how to achieve them.

[Richardo]

10. I love it when the voice of sanity shows up here....you and cali are two of them

:applause:

[cali]

11. MADem certainly is and

I apprciate your saying the same about me.

[MADem]

21. Could it be....

that we are both old farts who have had the benefits of "Civics" classes?

Or is it that you are simply youthful and astute, and I am the old creaker who enjoyed those civics classes, back in the day?

It shows, doesn't it? Not having that background?

[Inuca]

13. Absolutely

Leahy is one of the best. Loved your arguments and the way you argued them :-).

[Hand]

6. Lieberman...

JUST KIDDING!

:hide:

[DCKit]

15. K&R for the comments. You nailed it MADem. nt

[Bitwit1234]

16. I think he is doing and ok job but boy it would have been nice to

see Patrick Fitzgerald get the nod for AG. How about it.

[cali]

19. Right. Because Leahy really has the power to

make bushco nominate Fitzgerald. And MADem did nail it: He's the best goddamn chair that Committee has seen in eons.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Russ Feingold, but Leahy hasn't really done anything wrong

It's simply who we've assigned to the committee, particularly Dianne Feinstein who has screwed us on more than one occasion.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Charles Schumer?