NYTimes Op/Ed: "Senate Should Question Mukasey Closely About Troubling Aspects Of His Record"

[Hissyspit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/opinion/18tue1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Editorial
Considering Mr. Mukasey

Published: September 18, 2007
Michael Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee to be attorney general, is being promoted as a “consensus choice,” which is meant to signal the Senate that it should be grateful and confirm him without delay. Mr. Mukasey is clearly better than some of the “loyal Bushies” whose names had been floated, but that should not decide the matter. The Senate needs to question him closely about troubling aspects of his record, and make sure he is willing to take the tough steps necessary to repair a very damaged Justice Department.

Mr. Mukasey has attributes that could make him a good attorney general. He has been a lawyer and federal district court judge in New York, where he enjoys a good reputation. Although he is not divorced from politics (he is on an advisory committee to Rudolph Giuliani’s campaign), it is unlikely that he would run the Justice Department as an adjunct of the White House, or a booster of the Republican Party, as Alberto Gonzales did.

Aspects of his record, however, are troubling. As a judge, he was too deferential to the government. In the case of Jose Padilla, who was accused of participating in a dirty bomb plot, he ruled that the president may detain American citizens indefinitely as “enemy combatants.” His dangerously narrow reading of the Constitution was rightly reversed by a federal appeals court.

In a 2004 Wall Street Journal op-ed article, Mr. Mukasey denounced the “hysteria” of Patriot Act critics, and lashed out at the American Library Association for trying to protect patrons’ privacy. He also made the dubious claim that based on the structure of the Constitution, the government should “receive from its citizens the benefit of the doubt.” And writing in The Journal this year, he promoted the truly awful idea of a separate national security court that would try suspected terrorists.

The Senate should question Mr. Mukasey about all of this, and about the government’s domestic spying program, which has operated illegally, and about which Mr. Gonzales has been unable to tell the truth.

MORE

[Solly Mack]

1. Yeah - I read his op-ed the other day

he's the easier to swallow guy is all....still doesn't make what you're swallowing good for you though

[bleever]

2. As George Carlin once said, "99% rat free!"

A guy who talks about strict fidelity to the Constitution, but thinks that the Constitution suggests that citizens should give the benefit of the doubt to the government, doesn't make me feel so great.

[Solly Mack]

3. I think it's safe to assume any choice by Bush comes with an agenda

Bush isn't down and out yet....

and I agree...I don't feel so great about it either

[Disturbed]

4. Congress will whisk him through.

Busholini decided to be halfway reasonable and not force Olson for AG. Congress is grateful for any tidbits he throws their way. The deal is done.

[bleever]

6. Pat Leahy can keep him off the schedule until the subpoenas are complied with.

I pray that he exercises that power.

[Marr]

7. That's exactly what needs to be done.

This nomination seems like the move of an administration that's given up on pushing an agenda forward, and has instead just gone into defensive mode, planning to run out the clock. This guy may be unlikely to push the Republican agenda as AG, but he also seems like the sort who would tend to block investigations of the Executive.

I wonder if he's a Federalist Society guy? Certainly sounds like it.

[Hissyspit]

11. The finest choice young frogs, kissed by the dew & freshly picked

enrobed in milk chocolate, & topped off with delicately whipped lark's vomit (or something to that effect).

[pinto]

5. Kick.

:kick:

[babylonsister]

8. "The government should receive the benefit of the doubt?" After this bunch of

crooks? Man, this needs to be hammered into Congress' head: this could be another enemy. Think about it; who would want this job?

[G_j]

9. "a separate national security court "

beyond the pale

[pinto]

10. Here's a recent Op-Ed piece from Mukasey, re: Padilla case (WSJ, 8/22)

Jose Padilla Makes Bad Law
Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions.

BY MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010505