Bush Goes With Mukasey As Attorney General [Updated]
By Steve Foley Posted in Breaking News — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Update: From the Politico: It came down to confirmability
"It came down to confirmability," said a former Justice Department official involved in the conversations.
Conservatives had been rooting for former Solicitor General Theodore B. (Ted) Olson, but Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed Wednesday to block his confirmation.
"The White House seems like they don't want a confirmation fight," said a Republican close to the selection process. "They think this guy is bulletproof from the left."
Adding a note of caution, the official said, "They want to make sure there's not a Harriet Miers rebellion from the right," referring to a Bush Supreme Court choice whose nomination was later withdrawn.
The White House, watching the congressional mood and calendar, is concerned about nominating someone who can quickly get to work rebuilding a Justice Department that has been demoralized and distracted by the travails of Gonzales.
The president has chosen Michael B. Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general:
President Bush has settled on Michael B. Mukasey , a retired federal judge from New York, to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general and will announce his selection Monday, a source familiar with the president's decision said Sunday evening.
Mukasey, who has handled terrorist cases in the U.S. legal system for more than a decade, would become the nation's top law enforcement officer.
The 66-year-old New York native, who is a legal adviser to GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, would take charge of a Justice Department where morale is low following months of investigations into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and Gonzales' sworn testimony on the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program.
Bush supporters say Mukasey, who was chief judge of the high-profile courthouse in Manhattan for six years, has impeccable credentials, is a strong, law-and-order jurist, especially on national security issues, and will restore confidence in the Justice Department.
Bush critics see the Mukasey nomination as evidence of Bush's weakened political clout as he heads into the final 15 months of his presidency. It's unclear how Senate Democrats will view Mukasey's credentials, but early indications are that he will face less opposition than a more hardline, partisan candidate like Ted Olson.
Of course I would have gone with Olson but the president's political capitol being what it is...
Quick background:
Born 1941 in Bronx, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on July 27, 1987, to a seat vacated by Abraham D. Sofaer; Confirmed by the Senate on November 6, 1987, and received commission on November 9, 1987. Served as chief judge, 2000-2006. Assumed senior status on August 1, 2006. Service terminated on September 9, 2006, due to retirement.Education:
Columbia University, A.B., 1963Yale Law School, LL.B., 1967
Professional Career:
Private practice, New York City, 1967-1972
Assistant U.S. attorney, Southern District of New York, 1972-1976
Chief, Official Corruption Unit, 1975-1976
Private practice, New York City, 1976-1987
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
There is still a miniscule chance of a new SCOTUS opening in the next four to five months.
The AG slot is not where the fight should be concentrated. And if not in a couple of months... We'll need a good roster intact for the next administration!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
here in NYC. Retired Judge, but active law partner it will be.
Gordon Taylor
Managing Editor
search for the real killer.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Charles Pickering
Miguel Estrada
John Bolton
Peter Pace
And now Ted Olsen.
Harry Reid won this fight, because George W. Bush refused to strap up. I refuse to believe the White House couldn't have won this fight. They simply lacked the will to try.
And, in so quitting, the Bush 43 White House gives Harry Reid a needed boost amongst his supporters. And a clear indication that, in some cases, the Moonbat Democratic Congress is still more than capable of compelling the Bush 43 White House to obey.
I support this President...but if we can't have good conservatives in key offices because the President isn't willing or can't afford to get roughed up fighting for them...then January 2009 can't get here fast enough.
It is distressing to see it publicly reinforced---again---that in some situations Harry Reid/Chuck Schumer/Carl Levin can command this Executive Branch to sit and lie down, just as Cesar Milan does to recalcitrant dogs on The Dog Whisperer.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Dingy Harry whupped GWB's butt on this one. I thought it was GHWB that was supposedly the wimp. The "confirmability" word is simply code for "we didn't have the guts for a fight".
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Not believing this leak on Mukasey. Suspecting a trial ballon or someone pushing hard for Mukasey (or Olsen?) in the battle of the finalists (whoever they are).
This White House kept SCJs Roberts and especially Alito very secret until moments before the announcement. We're supposed to believe a Sun late PM leak? I see "no joy" here (and, no Supreme Court Justice Joy Clement either).
President Bush better select someone wise and staunch against liberal pressure from the Senate and media or he'll come to regret it. Some RINOs and well-meaning suckers never learn. Bush is a single special prosecutor away from more stress, more distraction & more liberal lies and insinuations...daily.
Of course, I feel the same about your list. Some ideal champions for the ages stymmied by the liberals & RINOs in the Senate. But, the main objective here should be to select AG who isn't tricked into showing his "independence". The AG works for the President & on his behalf and should be politically astute to recognize the traps the liberals craft.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
with the probable exception of Pace, the fault is entirely at the feet of a previously unthinkably recalcitrant, radical Democrat party and an unbelievably inept majority leader whose name I won't mention but whose initials rhyme with Bill Frist (and a weepy Voinovich in Bolton's case). Bush nominated and fought for them.
and Olson wasn't even ever the nominee, and while I would have liked him better too, there are enough people (besides Schmuck Schumer and Nan Aron, that is) vouching for Mukasey that there's really no reason to believe he won't be an acceptable nominee either.
My complaint isn't that he nominated or didn't nominate so-and-so, its that the SJC will now have to waste time that should be spent on judges confirming ANYONE, when he could have just left Paul Clement or someone else as acting SG, or recess appointed someone.
an instant cause for concern. Schumer is the perfect litmus paper for poor judgement.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
but the devil hisself can be wrong occasionally. :)
and even if he's not completely, there's a difference in recommending a 65 year old with potential to disappoint conservatives for a lifetime Supreme Court seat and a 14-month DoJ stint.
I remember how the D's were whining about Ashcroft's pro-life views just being "so unfair" as AG. The pro abortion advocacy groups wield the real power in the Democratic Party. They didn't care about surveillance under Clinton's watch, but he knew better than to ever disappoint them on abortion issues.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
And by that I mean the people with net worths of more than $10 million dollars, who have told the Bush family behind the scenes:
"If your son picks someone who causes an attorney general fight that you're going to lose, you had better believe that the next thing anyone from the Bush family is going to be doing in politics is taking out the trash. Behind bars. With no money."
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Wealthy people who count themselves as Republican donors do not want any more fights provoked by this President. He has been *told*.
and would be happy sucking Tip O'Neil's toes for a millenia just so's a fight is avoided and nobody calls them a racist or accuses them of taking their religion seriously.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Not all people with net worths over $10 million who are Republican are "country clubbers." One of my family members isn't. He has always had a lot of money (comparatively speaking) but he also works 8-12 hours a day, including weekends, and AFAIK does not have a country club membership. He lives well, no doubt about it, but he's not a country clubber or global jetsetter.
On the other hand, he's very disappointed with the Bush Presidency, on a lot of levels. He took his Bush Tax Cuts and put them right back into investments, and he still pays more than half of his annual income in taxes (combined State, Federal and Local here in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts).
It's TRUE. I've seen his tax returns. This idea that wealthy people aren't paying taxes is another Donk invention. I invite you to visit my uncle personally and ask him how much money he has paid to the various and sundry governments over the past seven years, even *with* the Bush tax cuts.
His primary question is: "Are things better because of the money I send to the government(s) or because of the money I get to keep?" And the answer is almost always that he creates more jobs, more opportunity, and more wealth than the government does.
OTOH he's not enamored of this President any longer and is frankly tired of defending him. And I don't blame him.
I mean it comparatively. He doesn't live anywhere near as well as the wealthy Democrats in this state. He doesn't have enough money to be the poolman for Ted Kennedy or John Kerry.
The 'behind bars' bit is what confused me.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Harper's Magazine obviously wants the base to fight the President on this. That is why I'm not going to.
Mukasey will definitely be confirmed by the pro-abortion Dems.
Mark Levin over at NRO refers to a case where the judge gave a ruling favorable to the China forced abortion policy. The ruling was contrary to the rules AG Meese had set in place on these matters.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson