“In Ricci, Judge Sotomayor’s empathy for one group of firefighters turned out to be prejudice against another.” — Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL, Ranking GOP Senator on the Judicial Committee
Let’s look at that statement closely.
Continue reading »
Jul 132009
Jul 132009
I’m not advocating legal action here; just making a subjective statement that these things are unhealthy for everyone involved (especially the American people).
Continue reading »
I haven’t been posting much lately because I’ve been spending most of my time packing all of my possessions into boxes. Ah, the joys of moving. But I have been paying attention to the news, especially the resignation of Justice David Souter and the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I can’t remember ever seeing a case where the absurdity of the American political dialogue was in full view as this whole conversation.
Let’s start with Justice Souter. Souter has to be one of the most conservative judges to ever serve on the Supreme Court, by any objective definition. Continue reading »
Nov 012007
In his press conference this afternoon, President Bush attacked Congress for not moving faster on the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. In a baffling statement, President Bush reportedly said that it was improper for Congress to ask the nominee how he feels about interrogation methods on which the nominee has not been fully briefed. And yes, we’re talking about torture here–that is the use of violence and/or intimidation to extract information from a prisoner. Apparently, the president expects the Senate to vote on a nominee without any knowledge about what that nominee thinks about the most pressing legal issue he will have to deal with as Attorney General. Someone needs to look up the phrase “advise and consent”.
Look, once and for all, let’s just make this clear. The President of the United States thinks that it is OK to torture people. He can dance around it all he wants, but at the end of the day, that’s what he has said and demonstrated on multiple occasions. It’s a cowardly, stupid, and morally abhorrent position to take, but hey, we knew about it when we reelected the guy in 2004, so the fault is ours. (To paraphrase something my brother said, “I’m not a big fan of Kerry, but I think I’ll vote for the guy who thinks that torture is a bad idea.”)
That being said, President Bush will NEVER nominate an Attorney General who disagrees with him on that issue. Therefore, Congress has three options:
1) They can confirm Mukasey, who besides this issue seems to be a reasonably competent guy. (Although there is an NY Times Op-Ed from today that disagrees with that assessment.)
2) They can not confirm Mukasey, and confirm the next pro-torture sycophant that Bush nominates.
3) They can refuse to confirm another Attorney General until Bush leaves office–which won’t actually stop the Bush Administration from torturing folks, of course.
Personally, I think Option #2 is probably the best move politically, and does at least send some message to the president and the American people that we think the issue is important. Option #3 sends the strongest message, but it doesn’t really change policy and I am afraid that it would leave the Democrats a little vulnerable on the issue in the 2008 elections. And Option #1 is reasonable, if and only if we think that the next guy Bush nominates will do a significantly worse job at all the other things that the Attorney General does.
None of them are good options, but again, that’s our fault. We’re getting exactly what we paid for.
Mar 212007
Ah, welcome to an unfriendly Congress, Mr. President. During the Clinton presidency, we were regaled with scandal after scandal. Congress seemed to like to do nothing better than to accuse the President, or his advisers, of withholding information, of being evasive, etc. And, as you might expect, Clinton made every effort to shield himself from Congressional scrutiny behind the Constitutional separation of powers. Most of the time, he failed to shield himself, his people testified, and nothing happened; but such is the nature of these things.
And now, it’s President Bush’s turn. The absurd thing in this particular instance, having to do with the firing of eight United States attorneys by the Justice Department, is that the entire thing could have been avoided. United States attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, which basically means that the president can hire and fire them at his own whim. When the assistance attorney general was first asked about the firing of these men, he could have been evasive, and just sent a memo to Congress later on. After all, by law, the President is not required to give a reason about firing these guys. He could have fired them for insubordination, for having bad breath, or because they were all born on days ending in “y”. In fact, there is a history of firing US attorneys en masse, and while this is a counter-productive and lousy tradition, it is perfectly legal.
Recent Comments