Who Will Filibuster Mukasey?

[and-justice-for-all]

Michael Mukasey refuses to say that waterboarding is torture because Dick Cheney won't let him - otherwise he would have to prosecute Cheney and Bush as war criminals. Mukasey also believes the President can ignore FISA and the Constitution and wiretap American citizens without a warrant, which makes the President a Dictator.

Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) betrayed the Constitution and embraced waterboarding and dictatorship by announcing their support for Mukasey. But Mukasey's nomination can be defeated if 40 Democrats support a filibuster - and it takes just one Senator to start one.

So we're petitioning every Senator who claims to be a progressive leader: Joe Biden at JoeBiden.com ... Barbara Boxer at Pac for a Change ... Hillary Clinton at HillaryClinton.com ... Chris Dodd at ChrisDodd.com ... Russ Feingold at the Progressive Patriots Fund ... Ted Kennedy at the Committee for a Democratic Majority ... John Kerry at JohnKerry.com ... Barack Obama at BarackObama.com ... Harry Reid at Searchlight Leadership Fund ... Bernie Sanders at Bernie.org
http://www.democrats.com/filibuster-mukasey

Also tell your Senators to oppose Mukasey:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/122

Call the undecided Senators and report their responses:
http://www.democrats.com/mukasey-judiciary-whip

Join the Democratic Donor Strike against Chuck Schumer's DSCC:
http://www.democrats.com/donor-strike-2007

Tell your Senators to support Chris Dodd's filibuster of warrantless wiretapping:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/114

[VP505]

1. I am NOT

holding my breath waiting for ANY Senator to filibuster, put a hold or do anything other than go along with the confirmation.

[OzarkDem]

2. At the very least

Senate Dems should use this opportunity to get some concessions on votes for their own legislation or support for continuing investigations.

[MadMaddie]

3. Nah...that will never happen...they are so busy capitulating to

appease the Repugs that they don't have the balls to do the right thing...

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Unlike Mr. Smith Goes to washington

there really isn't much of a single-person filibuster anymore. It takes 40 Senators to do so.

Unfortunately, Mukasey will be confirmed. It pisses me off because the Dems should at least be trying to look strong, but the fact is, Mukasey is about as good as we're gonna get from Bush. He'd just appoint him as a recess appointment, anyway. It's frustrating, isn't it?

[cascadiance]

7. He wouldn't be "the best" if we had the cahones to threaten impeachment if he didn't "cooperate"!

Unfortunately, our congress also either seems to be "weak" or "complicit" on this issue.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Nominating a candidate

the opposing party doesn't love isn't an impeachable offense.

[cascadiance]

9. But nominating such a candidate doesn't absolve one of OTHER impeachable offenses either!

There are plenty of impeachable offenses this president has committed that ARE impeachable!

Much as Bush would like that to be excused from impeachment by a nomination of his ...

No, the Dems still don't play hardball when they should. And that's why they are getting run over, either through complicity or ineptness!

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Ah, you want to change the subject

but let's address your original point: Do you think nominating Mukasey is an impeachable offense?

[cascadiance]

15. No, I'm not changing the subject NOR am I saying nominating Mukasey is an impeachable offense!

READ my posts! You're putting words into my mouth!

What I SAID was that IF the Democrats were more persistent in following through on holding this president accountable for OTHER impeachable offenses (AGAIN, I'm not saying nominating Mukasey is impeachable!), then the president might be more inclined to be cooperative with what the Dems (and WE as the people want nominated as an AG). Right now Bush feels like he can get away with what he wants because our leadership doesn't hold his feet to the fire! It IS damn relevant! As long as this leadership doesn't hold this president's feet to the fire, he probably will get away with nominating this candidate for AG without anyone giving him any resistance.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. OK, I understand...

but the fact remains impeachment is not a viable option: it will fail.

So what next?

I'm adamantly opposed to Mukasey's appointment. I have called and written to Senator Feinstein (My senator) to tell her so.

But that's not going to change much. If Mukasey's not confirmed, he'll be recess-appointed, or a worse option will be put in. It sucks. But that's what happens when you have an extremely narrow margin in the Senate.

[cascadiance]

18. That really depends on how you define "failure"...

If you define it by the narrow definition on whether it will get Bush and cronies out of office, then yes, it *might* fail, and if that is the only objective of those who pursue it, then the others will push them to not do it at all.

But if you define success for impeachment process as:

1) Giving good senators and congress people the opportunity to show that they are adherents to constitutional law and are principled enough to actively defend it by pursuing impeachment, then, whether it is successful or not, it will be helpful in those who follow the law to show that they are government officials that believe in the rule of law, which not only helps their standing with citizens of the United States, but also their standing with others around the world. They can become successful by pursuing impeachment.

2) Forcing those senators that might vote against it to *go on record* as to whether they support the constitution and will impeach a president and other members of his administration for committing impeachable acts. These are individuals, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, that we want to push out of government and replace with those who do believe in the rule of law. They are winning at this point by impeachment not being pursued, as they can always claim one way or the other on whether they would have voted for impeachment if it were to come to a vote in the future if they aren't forced to do so in reality. Most of these folks would be Republicans, and therefore pursuing impeachment (whether a conviction is achieved or not) would be successful in pushing these people out of office if their voting constituents are then able to understand that they are more in government for power's sake rather than upholding the rule of law.

3) Bush and his cronies, whether they are convicted in the Senate or not, will have the black mark of impeachment on their record, which IS achievable by a simple majority vote in the House, where we do have the votes to do so, unless there again we have certain Democrats that SHOULD be exposed for not ruling in the favor of the rule of law and made vulnerable in 2008 by doing so. The sooner the better, so that they can be replaced in primaries and not the general election. If Bush is impeached, that also can help courts restrain him and other individuals from pursuing political or legal office subsequently, which would be a big win! Perhaps could also lead to them being incarcerated, if the impeachment trials were to yield enough evidence for them to be prosecuted in regular courts afterwards for war crimes, etc. Again, a win/win situation!

Now if we actually convict them, we get them out of office and we win in many other ways. If we don't convict, we expose those lawmakers that SHOULD be exposed, and also taint those in the administration now both with their reputations and their careers/lives later after they leave office. A Win/Win situation.

Not pursuing impeachment only empowers both the administration and those that would vote against impeachment, and that is why we are losing on votes such as the one approving Mukasey! Because these people are made to feel bold to continue to centralize the power to this criminal administration! Not doing anything is what is the failure.

[spanone]

21. they should stand for 'principle'. that's what really pissed me off.

they should stand for the Constitution.

[Richard D]

5. I'm not holding my breath . . .

. . but a good filibuster would be reading graphic descriptions of waterboarding over and over and over.

[williesgirl]

6. k&r

[Swamp Rat]

10. A real American n/t

[mvd]

11. Feingold would do it

After all, he stood virtually alone in not wanting the Nonpatriotic Act passed.

[cali]

19. No. Feingold won't do it.

He had a hard time even coming to a decision to oppose Mukasey.

[mvd]

20. Has he said he won't do it?

If he really believes in something, I don't think it matters when he came to his decision. I know Dodd said he would filibuster.

[karynnj]

12. Don't we need 41 Senators?

I think we need to keep them from getting 60.

[kath]

14. The Dems CAN'T filibuster.

They have to keep the powder dry.

[upi402]

16. Need to protect and defend their 11% popularity rating. n/t

[kath]

23. Oh, yeah. That's WAAAAY more important than protecting and defending the Constitution,

which they all take an oath to do, the slimy fuckers.

[spanone]

22. i guess that 'nuclear option' only applied to republicons