Democrats Place Hurdle to Mukasey’s Confirmation

[aps]

I am so proud of the Democrats! Hang tough, my friends! Let the President know that he is not a superpower who should be bowed down to.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 — Just hours after President Bush said he will nominate Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge from New York, as his next attorney general, Senate Democrats threatened today to hold up Mr. Mukasey’s confirmation unless the White House turns over some documents they are seeking.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/washington/17cnd-attorney.html

 

[Cold Highway]

Funny Shcumer was praising this noiminee or at least planning on giving him the ok.

 

[mpg]

Gonzales resigned over a manufactured scandal. The Dems have already won that battle with their sleaze. Now they're overreaching and it's going to bite them in the arse. The only reason that they weren't already bit is that they have the media on their side.

 

[jfuh]

Gonzales resigned over a manufactured scandal. The Dems have already won that battle with their sleaze. Now they're overreaching and it's going to bite them in the arse. The only reason that they weren't already bit is that they have the media on their side.

Over Reaching? Well when Gonzales continually told the congress "oh I don't remember, I've no recollection" and the white house stated executive privileged here and there with regards to the issue, that was the white house giving congress the finger. Now congress is giving the same back. Check's and balances, wonderful.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Gonzales resigned over a manufactured scandal.

IF that were true (and it's not) that would make Alberto an even bigger ***** than I already imagined that he is. Any man of principle and especially one who is the Attorney General who caves into public opinion over principle does not deserve to be in the position that is causing him to be such a *****....

 

[mpg]

IF that were true (and it's not) that would make Alberto an even bigger ***** than I already imagined that he is. Any man of principle and especially one who is the Attorney General who caves into public opinion over principle does not deserve to be in the position that is causing him to be such a *****....

Either he or Bush is a *****.

 

[mpg]

Over Reaching? Well when Gonzales continually told the congress "oh I don't remember, I've no recollection" and the white house stated executive privileged here and there with regards to the issue, that was the white house giving congress the finger. Now congress is giving the same back. Check's and balances, wonderful.

Congress gave the administration the finger when they issued the subpoenas. The administration reciprocated. Congress won that battle when Gonzales resigned. Now they're getting greedy.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Either he or Bush is a *****.

Actually I think they both are. Bush lack of ability to do even an adequate job as President is reflective in the weak ******s he places in Cabinet positions.

Think about all the losers that have "served" in Bush's cabinet...i.e.

Rumsfeld, Brownie, Rice, Chertoff, Gonzales, Meyers, Ashcroft etc....

 

[DeeJayH]

IF that were true (and it's not) that would make Alberto an even bigger ***** than I already imagined that he is. Any man of principle and especially one who is the Attorney General who caves into public opinion over principle does not deserve to be in the position that is causing him to be such a *****....

and yet you want to elect a twat who will do that very same thing
and you are so proud of slick willie for doing the exact same thing
:3oops: :doh :lol:
pretty sad, or hypocritical

does tthis mean you are a fan of Bush since he is a man of principle and not one swayed by public opinion??????????????????
remember, you don't have to like ones positions to respect him

 

[DeeJayH]

Actually I think they both are. Bush lack of ability to do even an adequate job as President is reflective in the weak ******s he places in Cabinet positions.

Think about all the losers that have "served" in Bush's cabinet...i.e.

Rumsfeld, Brownie, Rice, Chertoff, Gonzales, Meyers, Ashcroft etc....

guess not :roll:

 

[26 X World Champs]

and yet you want to elect a twat who will do that very same thing
and you are so proud of slick willie for doing the exact same thing
:3oops: :doh :lol:
pretty sad, or hypocritical

does tthis mean you are a fan of Bush since he is a man of principle and not one swayed by public opinion??????????????????
remember, you don't have to like ones positions to respect him

Bush is not principled in his "loyalty" he is stubborn-stupid to a fault and he lets his stubborn-stupidenss effect his decision making which has made him a *****, a loser and the worst President ever...he's ranked #1 in his class (out of 44).

 

[DeeJayH]

Bush is a man of principle
whether you agree with his principles or not is irrelevant
he does not waver due to polls
he does what he thinks is best, based upon his convictions, and that just has to chafe your arse bat boy
as far as your Dem trifecta
did you not learn anything from the Rep trifecta? anything?
those who do not learn from the past, yada yada yada

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Over Reaching? Well when Gonzales continually told the congress "oh I don't remember, I've no recollection"

Ya you're right he should have told them to GFTSs and not testified in the first place.

 

[Stinger]

Ya you're right he should have told them to GFTSs and not testified in the first place.

This is political blackmail, Bush should immediately tell them to go screw themselves, appoint an interim and then make a recess appointment. The Senate has no right negotiating over this. I don't ever recall a congress making such demands else they will not see to their duty to get a new Attorney General, a Cabinet level official, in place as fast as possible to protect the peoples interest. Rather they are going to engage in outrageious partisanship and blackmail.

No wonder this congressional leadership has the lowest rating in the history of congressional ratings.

In fact Bush should threaten to recess appoint Olson unless they confirm Mukasey AND agree to refuse to confirm anyone else to replace him if a Democrat is elected into office. Let's play hardball if that's what the Dems want.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

To me, this is exactly like adding irrelevant pork to an important bill. Congress needs to confirm or not confirm Mukasey as AG based on their opinion of the man and his ability...not based on an issue that has nothing to do with this decision.

 

[RightinNYC]

In June 2003, Democratic New York Senator Charles Schumer submitted Mukasey's name, along with four other Republicans or Republican appointees, as a suggestion for Bush to consider for nomination to the Supreme Court.

Sen Schumer: "If Attorney General Gonzales steps down, the White House has a real chance to clear the air, to restore faith that the rule of law will come first and politics second in the Justice Department, not the other way around, if they nominate somebody who, by their reputation and career, shows that they put rule of law first, a person like a Michael Mukasey, a person like a Larry Thompson, a person like a Jim Comey. These are conservative Republicans, but they put the rule of law first. And I hope that's what the White House will do."

Every time Schumer does anything to delay or otherwise prevent this confirmation, remember these quotes and ask yourself whether he's acting based on what he thinks is best for the nation or what he thinks is best for the Democratic party.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I may lean left, but it's partisan crap like this that disgusts me...regardless of which side does it.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I may lean left, but it's partisan crap like this that disgusts me...regardless of which side does it.

Except you're failing to remember that the root cause of this so-called partisanship is the Bush Administrations stonewalling, constantly of any and all requests from Congress for documents...in effect they're normally obstructing justice on a technicality which is confrontational and leads to this...

 

[26 X World Champs]

Every time Schumer does anything to delay or otherwise prevent this confirmation, remember these quotes and ask yourself whether he's acting based on what he thinks is best for the nation or what he thinks is best for the Democratic party.

Schumer has done nothing to delay this nomination, nada. You need to look beyond your own partisanship and accept that virtually any nominee is going to be scrutinized...it's called....CHECKS AND BALANCES! Geez!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Except you're failing to remember that the root cause of this so-called partisanship is the Bush Administrations stonewalling, constantly of any and all requests from Congress for documents...in effect they're normally obstructing justice on a technicality which is confrontational and leads to this...

A) No this partisanship was caused by the DemocRAT party trying to create a faux scandal and in so doing sh!tting all over the Constitution and separations of power.

B) Can the President request to go through all of the DemocRAT candidates for President files? Is that a reasonable request?

 

[Stinger]

Ya you're right he should have told them to GFTSs and not testified in the first place.

And what exactly is it Schumer still wants to investigate, what is the evidence they have that something nefarious happened.

Feingold on FoxNews. You won't find any other news network trying to get to the bottom of it, they just cowtow the Democrats accusations, as baseless as they are.

WALLACE: Meanwhile, this week a House committee held two White House aides in contempt, and a Senate committee issued a subpoena for Karl Rove to testify, all in the investigation of the firing of U.S. attorneys.
Senator, so far, Congress has been investigating this issue all year. You've heard from 14 witnesses. You've received 8,500 pages of documents.
Can you point to a single smoking gun, any hard evidence, that the White House has done anything illegal?


FEINGOLD: I think clearly with regard to the NSA surveillance program that we've been talking about...


WALLACE: No, no, I'm talking about the U.S. attorneys, sir.


Notice how he tried to dodge.


FEINGOLD: Well, I believe they probably have. I can't give you anything definitive on that, but I do believe there's been terrible misconduct and misleading approaches here.


He has nothing, not a shred of evidence, not the smallest morsel of probable cause.


FEINGOLD: And look. My view is that our first priority is getting us out of Iraq. We have had successes in terms of raising the minimum wage. We are going to pass a major lobbying and ethics bill. We've passed an energy bill. We've got the pay-go rule back in place. This is what we spent six months on.


More dodging, he was asked specifically about the US Attorney firings.
He is being asked what is the evidence you have, what has all the screaming and crying been about. And he has NOTHING.


FEINGOLD: But now we have started some accountability. This was a week of accountability — a censure resolution proposal that I made, the call for the special counsel, the issuing of contempt orders.


FOR WHAT? He can't produce a shred of evidence that calls for any such matters.


FEINGOLD: This administration is trying to prevent us from learning the facts about these situations that you've asked me about. Until we can learn the facts, how do we know whether they have committed anything illegal?



Then lets investigate EVERYONE in the Senate, get all their records and emails and phone records and put them under oath, until we can learn the facts, how do we know whether they have committed anything illegal?



FEINGOLD: Until we can learn the facts, how do we know whether they have committed anything illegal? Until we can learn the facts, how do we know whether they have committed anything illegal? That's something that we as members of Congress have an obligation to find out, not just a question of whether we should do it or shouldn't do it. We need to ask these questions or we're not doing our job.



Same with the justice department



WALLACE: But you know, I think the question is, is this really going anywhere? Is this substantive oversight or is this political theater?
I mean, the point is on the U.S. attorneys which we're talking about, six-month, seven-month investigation, 8,500 pages of documents, 14 witnesses, and you say yourself as a member of Senate Judiciary you haven't found any hard evidence that the White House has broken the law.
FEINGOLD: Well, I happen to think they probably did break the law here, but I don't think the investigation is over, and...


He just thinks so so it must be, and he can't state one fact to back up his assertion no reason to think as he does.



WALLACE: But do you have any evidence of that?
FEINGOLD: ... until we — well, that's why we're asking for people like Karl Rove and others to come down and testify so we can actually examine the evidence.
We haven't had access to the evidence. How are you supposed to examine it when you can't look at it?


IOW no he has no evidence and no reason to believe anything illegal was done.


WALLACE: Finally, while all this is going on, as you pointed out, you plan to introduce legislation or resolutions this week to censure the president, two resolutions.
When you tried this last year, only three Democrats signed on to your motions or to your resolutions. Wouldn't the American people rather see Congress do something about lower drug prices, about energy policy, about student loans, all part of the Democratic agenda, that you haven't passed so far rather than engage in this political theater?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291298,00.html

 

[mpg]

Schumer has done nothing to delay this nomination, nada. You need to look beyond your own partisanship and accept that virtually any nominee is going to be scrutinized...it's called....CHECKS AND BALANCES! Geez!

This is as far away from scrutiny as you can get.

 

[RightinNYC]

Schumer has done nothing to delay this nomination, nada.

He hasn't done anything yet because it was announced yesterday. If/When he does, my statement will be relevant.

You need to look beyond your own partisanship and accept that virtually any nominee is going to be scrutinized...it's called....CHECKS AND BALANCES! Geez!

Undertaking efforts to delay the confirmation of a presumptively qualified nominee on the grounds that one wishes the executive to release documents completely unrelated to the qualifications or performance of the nominee is not "checks and balances." It's obstructionism.

 

[Binary_Digit]

From the article:

"All I want is the material we need to ask some questions about the former attorney general’s conduct, on torture and warrantless wiretapping, so we can legitimately ask, ‘Here’s what was done in the past, what will you do?’ ” Mr. Leahy, the committee chairman, told reporters."

 

[Gibberish]

Can the President request to go through all of the DemocRAT candidates for President files? Is that a reasonable request?

It is a reasonable request for congress to ask for files on individuals they need to either A) Confirm, or are B) Investigating.

The President could only perform a single task by receiving such files...Help him better his personal opinion on who to vote for in 2008.