deleted -- for sourcing problem

[HamdenRice]

I had a bunch of articles in front of me and now I can't find the main source.

I'll repost when I sort out the sourcing problem.

[maddiejoan]

1. So we get Mukasey

Because Reid can't find anybody to work OT over the holidays?

Really?

[Richardo]

7. He'd need a quorum: 51 senators

How would he do that?

[Inuca]

18. I am pretty sure a quorum is not needed

to be officially in session. There was talk a way back that Reid intended to do exactly that to prevent recess appointments. So I do not think that a recess appointment is the real problem, but that the current interim AG is said to be worse than Mukasey is likely to be, and Bush has basically said that it is Mukasey or the status quo until the end of his reign. I am beyond disgusted with the torture issue, every time I hear it discussed I cannot believe my ears that we have sunk so low, but rationally speaking Mukasey is probably the best we were going to get, and he is likely to be better than Ashcroft and most definitely better than Gonzo (which admittedly does not say much).

[journalist3072]

2. Well if Bush truly did threaten to appoint Bork during a recess appointment if the Senate didn't

give him Mukasey, the Senate has a solition: STAY IN SESSION. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

No recess for the Senate = No recess appointment for Bork

Furthermore, they make it clear to Bush that this is NOT McDonalds. He can't have it his way. He has a right to NOMINATE who he wants. But the Senate is under no obligation to confirm that nominee, especially if they are outside the maintain of American jurisprudence. They have every right to go to Bush and say 'you need to find a consensus nominee.'

[Lerkfish]

3. why defend it?

that's my only question.


there are times to stand on principle, even when you know you're going to lose. If there was EVER a time in our history, this is the time to do so.

[EFerrari]

4. So, there's no one in the Senate who thinks justice is worth

staying in session for? :shrug:

[Richardo]

5. This is what most are missing. The alternatives to Mukasey are all worse.

I don't know what people expect from a Bush nomination: William Kunstler?

It's getting pretty tiring to endure so many who have NO idea how politics work.

[Goblinmonger]

8. So why not just vote against the dick wad

And then when a bigger dick wad is put up, um, well, vote against them, too. And then the next dick wad and the next and the next. Why not that? Reid's solution was bullshit. But, hey, the powder's still dry for that big attack the Dems are going to make some day. Right? Harry? You do have a reason for keeping the powder dry? Don't you? Harry?

[Richardo]

14. Why not learn how our government works?

Ever hear of recess appointments or acting AGs?

We could do a lot worse than Mukasey. We've seen two of them already.

[Inuca]

21. Unfortunately, you are 100% correct n/t

[Goblinmonger]

25. He's only correct that Bush can circumvent the Senate.

That doesn't mean that harry's big plan is correct. "Learning how government works" doesn't just stop at "well, bush can just appoint someone else." Make him appoint an asshole. Make it clear to the public that he was circumventing the Senate. Why is the only option in government to bend over and grab your ankles. THAT makes no sense whatsoever.

[Richardo]

30. He did just that with Bolton and the UN

He circumvented the Senate and appointed an asshole. There was no lasting negative impact (if any at all - the GOP spinmeisters brag that he doesn;t need no stinking Senate).

Think of something else.

[Goblinmonger]

34. I guess implicit in the "grow a pair of balls Harry" plan

it would mean that the Dems actually had the ability to spin this against Bush. Sorry for making that leap.

Sure, you're right, they should just bend over, grab their ankles, and ask for another, sir. THAT is a much better plan. Will really endear them to the public.

[Goblinmonger]

23. So as I said down thread

Why are the dems making it so that Bush doesn't look like an asshole? Aren't the Republicans the party of "we want to have a vote on this up or down." So make Bush make the appointment and then call him out for being an asshole. Let's drive his approval even further in the shitter while showing the public that the Dems actually aren't invertabrates. Why is the only option to roll over and give Georgie boy his way? We are really only talking about the difference between a level 8 douche and a level 10 douche here anyway. It's not like it's Thomas Jefferson vs Satan.

[cali]

6. I can't fault your analysis, even if I still have trouble

with their votes. And how hard is it for Reid to have pro forma sessions throughout the year? It could cause some inconvenience, but big deal. Still, I recognize that bushco would have either kept Keisler on if Reid used pro forma sessions, or he could even appoint Bork or some other horror as Acting AG. It's not like he'd be unwilling to flout the 120 day rule.

[Goblinmonger]

11. So the solution

is to make Bush NOT look like a dick for using back door tactics to get his little tantrum ways? THAT is a political solution? Why not drive that approval even lower for Bush and actually raise the approval of Congress by showing that they actually have something that resembles a spine? No, wouldn't want to do that.

[cali]

20. I agree with you

your argument is with the OP not me. I don't want the Senate putting their seal of approval on anyone who won't condemn torture. I do recognize, however that the OP made some good points about the practicable result of not voting him out of Committee. I'm willing to risk those results to make an important point. I'm not willing to pretend they don't exist.

[tekisui]

9. What is so hard about keeping a few lawmakers over the break

to block a horrible appointment and vote down Mukasey?

Wouldn't it be worth it to work a little extra?

[TroglodyteScholar]

13. Precisely my first thought...

...gee, saving justice in the USA isn't worth skipping a few days off? Fuck you, congress!

[democrank]

10. My suggestion for Democratic "leaders"........

Cave. Just nod and cave in. That`s what we elected them to do. Don`t make waves. Don`t raise your voice. Just play nice.

[Goblinmonger]

12. ...

:applause:

[journalist3072]

15. Just finished reading the Mother Jones and LA Times articles, and I don't see Robert Bork's name in

there. The LA Time article talked about putting Mukasey in there for a recess appointment, not Robert Bork.

[still_one]

19. and that makes sense, he would put mukasey in the recess appointment

not someone else. I say let congress stand on principle for once, and if bush does that let him. We only have about a year more to put up with this nonesense

[annabanana]

24. Please address this, HamdenRice! Where does Bork come into it?

serious flaw in the op

[Individualist]

16. You're trying to defend the indefensible

[Bumblebee]

32. Ted Olson, I am sure, would have been a possibility -- they wanted him

before deciding to go with M as a consensus candidate

[still_one]

17. Let him appoint bork in the recess. It can't be worse than Alberto

In fact Alberto Gonzolez actually committed perjury, and obstructed justice, and that didn't bother the Congress particularly, or they would have prosecuted him for those violations

We have about 1 year more to go. They won't impeach, and we are talking about crimes of treason, because making a CIA agents name public IS TREASON

I say let him do it. If bork is appointed, and tries to abuse the job, then Congress can do their job and impeach him

Incidently, your argument that he would appoint bork in the recess, doesn't make sense. He would most likely appoint mukasey

That is was he did with U.N. ambassador when he found out Congress wouldn't approve him

[Inuca]

22. Not worse than Gonzales, just worse than Mukasey n/t

[still_one]

26. The worst that an attorney general would do is not investigate abuses

and that is going to happen no matter who they appoint

Congress should stand up against torture on this one. Nothing will change because of an attorney general then what already has happened

and as I indicated, if the AG does do something abusive, Congress can alway impeach him

[davsand]

27. Nope, that is not a worthwhile reason to support Mukasey.

I'm not buying it. I dunno how many of you have ever had kids, but you just can't give in to tantrums and threats. The chimp is throwing a fit and DiFi and Schumer just enabled it. The net result will be even MORE tantrums and fits, and soon that little snot in the WhiteHouse will be so far out of control that nobody can do anything about controlling him.

I agree anyone that says the Dems should have stood firm in opposition to Mukasey. If we as a party can't stand up long enough to at least keep torture off the table we may as well kiss our collective ass goodbye. We now have ZERO credibility on just about any issue thanks to Schumer and DiFi.

While I realize a recess appointment of Bork would be a nightmare, I also realize that some of the Dem party have completely lost any sense of morality. I'm not sure which realization sickens me more. Bush could have been stopped--he should have been--and yet the Dems couldn't hold unity over something this funadamental...

Even IF he had made that recess appointment it would have further illustrated just what the differences are between the parties. Hell, it would have probably resulted in a pretty serious split in the GOP because I can't fathom that ANY of the moderate Republicans could have stood with Bush on appointing a torture fan as an AG. They have to face voters, and I doubt they want to stand publicly for torture.

I have been growing in my discontent with the Dems both locally and at state level, but this most recent action has really made me wonder WTF the Dem party actually does stand for. It sure as hell can't be human rights...




Laura

[Solly Mack]

28. "...if the Senate passed anti-torture legislation..." LMAO

Exactly how many times does Congress have to say NO torture before it actually applies?

Geneva Conventions - Article 3
CAT (Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment)
War Crimes Act of 1996 (Federal US Code)

ALL applied when Bush took office...and ALL said - NO TORTURE..and that does include water-boarding.

and still, Bush tortured...he also redefined torture and Congress (109th) cowardly gave him the power to determine the application and definiton of GC Article 3

This time won't be any different...no matter how many times the Senate passes "anti-torture" legislation

Accepting that as a defense for supporting Mukasey is about like saying "but Bush gave his word!"
when Bush does something he said he wouldn't do

[Bumblebee]

29. I was very disappointed with their decision because I just want Bush

never to get his way -- but, practically, I do see that between the guy who is there now and a recess appointment, he may well be the lesser of three evils, and it pains me to say so. Even Feingold, who is still undecided, said that.

[dailykoff]

31. Bork would be worse how?

Bork is already notorious; anything he did or said would get instantly criticized. Mukasey is unknown has about a year of anonymity to carry out whatever skullduggery he's tasked with. So this is baloney.

[ProSense]

33. There is no defense!

What's worse than condoning torture?

Mukasey, Gonzales, Bork, no difference.

They will all uphold Bush/Cheney/Addington's torture policy.

Feinstein and Schumer should have rejected Mukasey based on this single statement (which makes no sense) by Schumer:

Under this administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping.

What they did, however, is give Bush cover from making a recess appointment that would obviously continue to show that Bush believes he is above the law and that everyone in his administration condones torture.

Although Bush said that if Mukasey wasn't confirmed, there would be no AG, he would most likely have recess appointed Mukasey as he did Foxie. The thing any recess appointment would spark controversy. Mukasey, Gonzales, Bork, there is no difference.