Who Vetted Mukasey?
Here’s an interesting question from Dick Durbin to Mukasey. It addresses whom the Administration felt it needed to give buy-in before nominating Judge Mukasey:
11. According to the Washington Post, before you were confirmed you "spent part of the weekend meeting with leading figures in the conservative world, seeking to allay their concerns about [your] philosophy and suitability for running [the] Justice Department."
a. With whom did you meet?
ANSWER: Prior to the announcement of my nomination, I met with former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Lee Casey, Leonard Leo, David Rivkin, Jay Sekulow, and Edward Whelan.
b. Who asked you to take these meetings?
ANSWER: Officials within the White House. I cannot remember the specific individuals.
So:
- A former Attorney General implicated in Iran-Contra and additional corruption allegations.
- Casey and Rivkin, a one-two team serving as the public intellectuals defending the unitary executive
- Leo, the Executive VP of the Federalist Society alleged to have been involved in the Civil Rights Division politicization
- Sekulow, the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, one of the brains behind the Terry Schiavo circus, and someone with his own ethical challenges
- Ed Whelan, himself a bit of a public intellectual for the right, not to mention a former OLC lawyer when most of the crap was written and–my personal favorite–a former Senior Vice President of Verizon
Mind you, Addington the White House can ask Mukasey to meet with whomever they want–I’m not alleging this is in any way improper. Still, it’s interesting to see who the select few who get to vet an Attorney General candidate are.
EW – Well, you may not allege this is improper, but I will. It is clearly not illegal, and probably barely meets the minimum standards for ethics; but I have a hard time calling it proper. Mukasey isn’t being nominated to be the AG of the right wing GOP, nor is he being nominated to be the AG of the freaking Federalist Society; he is supposedly being nominated to be the fair and just AG for all of the citizens and the entire country. The fact that this esteemed group of jackasses gave Mukasey their seal of approval, in and of itself, a disqualifier for me.
Keep digging EW. Does the SJC vote on Mukasey tomorrow at 10AM or do we have more time to contact SJC members and our own senators, and bring their attention to these serious concerns?
Apparently the Judiciary Committee will be game, set and match on Mukasey. TPM reports that Harry Reid is stating he won’t pull any stunts to get Mukasey on the floor if Judiciary doesn’t give him a posive report out of committee.
As David Kurtz says, â€So as of this moment, it comes down to Leahy, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, and Cardin–the six Judiciary Committee Dems who have yet to announce their intentions. That’s assuming no Republicans on the committee break ranks, which appears unlikely.†bmaz says DiFi and Schumer are our problem children; hit them hard on this folks.
Neil — I believe the SJC vote is for next Tuesday. Keep those calls, emails, faxes pouring in!
E-mail sent to DiFi, with all these wonderful points hit.
Folks, the Bushies are not going to change their spots at this late date. The Demos just can’t seem to get this fact through their minds.
Don’t they remember Roberts and Alito???
Jolie Liebertwit scold his fellow Senators to confirm Mukasey, â€To reject the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey because he refuses to say what some members want him to say on this question, and he refuses as a matter of sincerely held legal belief…would be grossly unfair, an unjust act to this judge. May I suggest an alternative course…confirm him!â€
I don’t know whether to harbor anger or pity for the people of Connecticut….
And as long as we’re talking about scheduling, TPM is reporting that the SJC vote on the FISA revisions is scheduled for next Thursday. Big week next week…
Folks, the Bushies are not going to change their spots at this late date. The Demos just can’t seem to get this fact through their minds.
Don’t they remember Roberts and Alito???
bmaz, my suggestion for JoeL is a very long swim in Long Island Sound, along with the DINOs. (I’ll add that I think a large shark would improve the swim party greatly.)
Apologize for the dupe posting – slippery fingers, I guess.
I’m having a hard time believing that Mukasey can’t remember who, at the WH, asked him to meet with this unitary-executive booster club.
It sounds like contagious amnesia is still going around.
Why is Schumer avoiding the cameras? I think because he’s voting to confirm. If it was something good, he’d be out in front of it. Which gets him out of committee, right?
Then we’re looking at this handy TPM chart:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/…..ukasey.php
There will be many conscientious Dems who vote no. There will be more than a handful that vote yes. Ya can’t get Dems to grow spines overnight.
There have been too many outrages to list, too many to count. This will be another.
I loved this comment over at TPM which wraps it up nicely:
â€Michael Fiske wrote on November 1, 2007 5:27 PM:
Dear America
This is what we have come to.
We are forced to choose between condoning torture vs. putting the president of the united states in legal jeopardy if we want to declare torture illegal.
God help us.â€
And just in case folks are forgetting, like Deadeye is the Stealth President, Edwin Meese is the Stealth Chief Legal Beagle for all things to do with law thingies for the Repugs for the last 30 plus years.
Stuff like all plans, strategies, tactics in taking over the Supreme Court with Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.
Stuff like all plans, strategies, tactics in taking over all Federal Courts with Scalia-Thomas-Alito-Roberts clone wannabees from the Federalist Society.
Stuff like the creation of, and all plans, strategies, tactics for the Judicial Subversion Country club called the Federalist Society.
If there ever was a Prince Machiavelli of law stuff running all aspects of this nation’s descent into legal hell, Edwin Meese wears the crown.
thanks ew
this is one of those posts to post on the frig.
this one says tells me all i need to know about legal and judiciary nominations in the bush administration.
wonder how long this has been going on?
how many judicial appointees have also met with this â€team†or some members of it?
and exactly who decided they should be the hall monitors of the bush admin’s legal appointments?
Yep orionATL, that’s the problem really isn’t it — none of Bush’s appointments work for the public, they all serve at Bush’s pleasure. All of his appointments are to work for him and his political agenda. There is no objective reality in Bush-world, only the neo-con agenda which must be represented, sold to the masses, shoved down our throats if need be. Whether it is vetting appointees to toe the party line or rewriting scientific results to suit their policy agenda, selective application of the law (or complete abandonment of the law), or awarding no-bid contracts to party loyalists, there is only one goal and one master. Bush will not tolerate public service, there is only a place in the public sphere for those who demonstrate proper fealty to him.
Scott Horton over at No Comment (harpers) gives some more background on this meeting from an inside source at DOJ.
Sweet Jesus, Sekulow AND Rivkin (among the â€notablesâ€)?
An imagined exchange during said meeting:
Rivkin: â€Tell me your theory of Constitutional interpretation.â€
Mukasey: â€The Constitution should be viewed as a rough series of guidelines that can be followed or ignored as situations dictate. I am a big fan of ex post facto justifications, and ignoring any precedent that predates the pivotal year of 1982. Did I happen to mention that I view the Bill of Rights as subordinate to the optional recommendations of the Constitution. I don’t think it’s relevant that several states conditioned their support of the Constitution on the grounds that it would include a Bill of Rights. Yes, it’s true that the Constitution would never have been ratified without this conditional support, but I see this fact as irrelevant. I hold an equally skeptical view of the legal validity of Constitutional amendments. The document was perfect as written, and cannot be altered. The section on amendments was clearly an oversight on the part of the Framers. Did I ever mention that my hobbies include squaring circles, and making one plus one equal three?â€
Rivkin: â€I like this guy. I really like this guy.â€
Sekulow: â€Simple question judge: More Monica Goodlings? Yes or No?â€
Mukasey: â€Of course, yes. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I only believe in one kind of affirmative action — the kind that overlooks academic excellence and places a premium on fealty to Federalist society oaths. Only true-believers need apply. And by ’true-believers’ I mean TRUE-BELIEVERS. For example I’m looking for the kind of subordinates who would not bat an eye when I tell them with a straight face that I’ve squatted 2,000 lbs. and served with distinction in the Korean War. If they ask me to prove my claims, I would view this as an immediate disqualifier. If the person did not vote for Bush I would also see this as a disqualifier (and yes, I would ask them this question during job interviews — rules be damned). Hail Caesar and long live the Imperial presidency!â€
Sekulow: â€Frankly I think you are hedging too much, but since I owe my career to Republican sugar daddies, in the end, I’ll do as I’m told. That’s all.â€
Rivkin: â€I have my own simple question. Term limits: Yes or no?â€
Mukasey: â€As I stated earlier, I don’t view the clear letter of the Constitution to be any more binding than yesterday’s weather report. Some might say, ’thankfully Bush only has another 443 days and counting left in his term!’ To those doubters I would say: ’May Bush serve for 443 more years!’â€