Redstate

The difference being that Judge Mukasey is extremely well-qualified, having served as a long time federal district judge and chief judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, where he is universally respected as a smart, tough, fair judge. Go read a few dozen of his opinions if you don't believe me, or review some of the cases he handled.

Bush has very limited political capital and has to pick his battles, mainly on the war. If a SCOTUS vacancy were to open up, it's time to go guns ablazing. But for the AG job, given the short time remaining, what we need is someone who will do a professional job and not go soft on the war. Judge Mukasey fits that to a T.

Want Ted Olson as AG? Work for a candidate who might appoint him in January 2009. Bush is playing a weak hand well here.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

He's a cop-out on confirmability whose experience on legal issues is a bit backwards from what I'd want to see from an AG nominee (I'd rather see Bush look to a state AG, a current DoJ higher-up, or a federal prosecutor rather than a judge). And it is the whole "wimping out" thing that makes him another Miers, especially when Schumer is out there talking about how great a guy Mukasey is (odds are I bet Chuckie wouldn't vote to confirm him, though).

This just seems all wrong.

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

No, I don't like Bush backing down, but you do need to pick your battles when you are working from such a weak position. We do need to do what Reagan did ahead of the '88 election and get the poll numbers back up, and the Mukasey pick can't possibly help but get the kind of good press that will help convince swing voter types that the professionals are back in charge in DC, as was true with the nominations of Gen. Petraeus and Secretary Paulson as well as with Justices Roberts and Alito and, for a time, Tony Snow (and, on a lower profile level, Josh Bolten and Chris Cox). I'd like to have people who are pros and who are movement conservatives (e.g., Ashcroft, Rumsfeld), but picking people who will competently pursue conservative outcomes in their respective departments is more than enough for the last year and a half in office and a major step up from the man who is now Former AG AG (no, I'm not touching that acronym).

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

why GWB needs to "pick his battles" at this point in his presidency. He's out of here as of next year. What ramifications are there behind him ticking off the Dems again? Now I know they have a tendency to be able to run rings around the White House on PR, so maybe that's the reason - they don't want to be made to look bad yet again, since Bush doesn't have the chutzpah to fight back against the Schumerites. But I can't think of any other reason why Bush doesn't just (as Neil points to) pull the trigger on a recess appointment. It worked just fine with Bolton, and I don't see any long-term issues around that. If Bush had another 4 years ahead of him and a sure-thing SCOTUS vacancy, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly about Bush picking his battles carefully.

On the "swing voter" front, I'm sorry - I just can't see an AG nomination having that much impact. I'll bet you that 75% of Americans couldn't have even told you that Alberto Gonzales was the AG before, so I'm thinking an AG appointment won't do much for electoral success either way. But you probably are more savvy on these things than me; I'm a relative political simpleton.

There is one other possibility, of course, and that is that Bush honestly thinks that Mukasey is the best guy for the job. And from what you and a few others have said, he probably isn't that bad of a choice. So be it. Frankly, I'm nowhere near as disgusted with this Bush decision as some of his other moves, so I'm certainly not going to raise a ruckus. But it does show all the signs of an emasculated president.

Do we want a qualified conservative candidate with a potential future in government to be the recess appointment?

I don't think so. I think taking a recess appointment as the AG from Bush at this time is what they call a career limiting move in certain circles. Regardless of how qualified he is, if he is a recess appointment the Dems and the MSM (I know, I repeated myself) will mercilessly smear such a person and that person will be unable to win future confirmed appointment.

In theory you might be able to get someone to do it as an end of distinguished career move, but most of these types people don't do that sort of thing because they expect to continue their careers right up to the point where they can't.

It's not as though the Attorney General will keep his job in the next administration anyway, regardless of who wins.

So let the President fight hard to get his way. He won the election; he's entitled to it.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Whoever Bush appoints will be hated by the Ds. That's just how deranged they are. Being a recess appointment is irrelevant.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

We all may not like how recess appointments are used beyond their original intent, but the law is the law, and he could have used one.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

"It all comes down to the main behind the desk" -- George H. W. Bush.

President Ford gave us John Paul Stevens.

But it's no coincidence that a 'conservative-enough' Ford appointed both men, surely.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Ford just nominated him.

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

-- Milton Friedman

The sooner this administration is over, the better. As long as it isn't replaced by a Democrat administration.

The Corner had a discussion on this. The Judge clearly had law on his side in that decision. He didn't like his ruling and in fact he complained about his hands being tied in his decision but he ruled according to the law as it stands.

What more could you possibly want from the AG than he uphold the law? Surely you're not recommending judicial activism?

...how's about you summarize his reasons for ruling as he did?

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Mark Levin IS a lawyer. I base my opinion of this judge from this summary by Levin:

"The Board is directed to exercise its independent judgment in hearing appeals for the Attorney General." As pointed out, it is an executive branch entity. So, the attorney general issues guidelines, as explained in an earlier post, directing the INS to give careful consideration to China's coercive family planning policies in deciding asylum petitions, and the Board that works for the attorney general responds by saying, in essence, that it doesn't apply to it? This seems a little slippery, does it not? The attorney general's position was communicated through the guidelines. It was known, including to the Board. The Board reports to him. Its members are inferior employees. But it says, in effect, you must not mean us since you referred to the INS? Yet, this is the Board that makes these determinations re asylum. Maybe the guidelines weren't perfected to the satisfaction of the Board. But who cares? The Board knew what the boss's position was and decided it didn't apply to it. This seems odd. Clearly the attorney general didn't intend for his asylum guidelines to be ignored by the Board, which appears to have taken the opposite substantive position on asylum for this particular petitioner."

The post also indicates that Congress passed a law similar to the Meese guidelines (I guess) and Bush 41 vetoed it. As an aside, do we know whether this was a stand alone bill and the reasons for the veto? The Clinton administration apparently derailed the Barr rule, which would have reversed the Board's ruling as well, according to the post. So, that would take us back to the Meese guidelines, which, if they hadn't been withdrawn or modified by subsequent attorneys general, would seemingly still be in effect. I don't know that to be the case, but am commenting from the post. Therefore, the issue for a judge wouldn't be whether to substitute his own policy preferences for the political branches, but to rule on whether the Board was correct in rejecting the Meese guidelines.

Is this what you wanted from me Moe?

"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

... while I made myself a sandwich.

Sorry, in other words. The Late Great Immigration Reform Implosion has left a bad taste in my mouth, so of course I'll blame it all on you. This is the Internet, after all.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

LINK
Perhaps if you impersonate Ben Stein and read this to your kid he will nap...or maybe you.
;>)
"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

Mukasey was indeed a top advisor to Giuliani. Olson and Estrada remain so. He could leave Mukasey in place, but the comparison with Thornburgh is invalid.

After Bob Dole conceded the nomination Reagan started working on creating a smooth transition to Bush. When his cabinet appointees quit - and many did, since their tenure was obviously limited - he mostly took Bush's advice on whom to appoint. So Thornburgh was Bush's appointee from the beginning - the beginning in his case being August 1988.

This makes a certain amount of sense. A quality candidate would not have accepted an appointment in August 1988 unless Bush wanted them in place. Anyone who was explicitly Reagan's guy would have had a very short tenure. At least as a Bush appointee Thornburgh knew he would stay in post if Bush won.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of