Will Senate Dems stand firm against Mukasey?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Will Senate Dems stand firm against Mukasey?

I doubt it.

Background from Sidney Blumenthal, if you need it:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/11/01/mukasey/

[cali]

1. Do you mean in the Judiciary Committee?

because I have my doubts about Feinstein. And if it gets to the floor, no way will Lieberman and Nelson and Landrieu vote against him. But I do think it's possible that Feinstein won't want to be out on a limb by herself, so maybe he can be stopped in Committee.

[BurtWorm]

2. I don't even trust the Dems on the Judiciary Committee anymore.

I don't know why. They've usually pulled through for me.

:sarcasm:

[cali]

4. Well, Biden, Kennedy and Feingold

have said that they won't vote for him. Leahy said the same thing tonight on VPR. I'm pretty sure that Whitehouse, Carper and Kohl won't go for him. Schumer and Feinstein appear to be the wild cards.

And I don't agree with you about the JC dems. I think they've been pretty good.

[BurtWorm]

6. Better than the average group of Senate Dems, I agree.

But they've disappointed enough times on judicial nominations to make me skeptical of any promise even they make.

The main reason I'm expecting to be disappointed is this bit of received "wisdom" being floated in tomorrow's NYTimes:

Scott L. Silliman, an expert on national security law at Duke University School of Law, said any statement by Mr. Mukasey that waterboarding was illegal torture “would open up Pandora’s box,” even in the United States. Such a statement from an attorney general would override existing Justice Department legal opinions and create intense pressure from human rights groups to open a criminal investigation of interrogation practices, Mr. Silliman said.

“You would ask not just who carried it out, but who specifically approved it,” said Mr. Silliman, director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke. “Theoretically, it could go all the way up to the president of the United States; that’s why he’ll never say it’s torture,” Mr. Silliman said of Mr. Mukasey.

Robert M. Chesney, of Wake Forest University School of Law, said Mr. Mukasey’s statements could influence the climate in which prosecution decisions are made.

“There is a culture of concern about where Monday-morning quarterbacking could lead to,” Mr. Chesney said. If Mr. Mukasey declared waterboarding illegal, “it would make it politically more possible to go after interrogators in the future,” he said. “Whether it would change the legal equities is far less clear.”

Mr. Chesney and other specialists emphasized that prosecution in the United States, even under a future administration, would face huge hurdles because Congress since 2005 has adopted laws offering legal protections to interrogators for actions taken with government authorization. Justice Department legal opinions are believed to have approved waterboarding, among other harsh methods.

In the end, elected Dems can usually be counted on to get on their knees before the received opinions of the ruling class. I think it's best to be prepared to be disappointed yet again. I hope I'm wrong.

[Bumblebee]

14. Whitehouse already said he won't vote to confirm

''If we allow the president of the United States to prevent or to forbid a would-be attorney general of the United States ... from recognizing that bright line, we will have turned down that dark stairway,'' Whitehouse said. ''I cannot stand for that. I will oppose this nomination.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Senate-Mukasey.html

[MiniMe]

15. Add Durbin to your list

[rwheeler31]

3. Who is worse the guy they got or this guy?

No good choices. Crap this guy anyway not worth it.

[Lint Head]

5. They haven't stood firm against anything yet.

:dem:

[me b zola]

16. Not quite

They've stood firm against impeachment.

[cali]

19. Actually, they have.

The Judiciary Committee under dems, has rejected several noms to the federal bench, and they stood firm on Gonzales.

[Greyhound]

7. Why would this be the first (and only) time they stood up for anything? n/t

[Bluebear]

8. I was looking for "HA ha hahahahahah ahahaha" as an option

[BurtWorm]

9. Well put.

To which I can only add, "Hahahahahaha."

:toast:

[cali]

10. I'm not ready to go the hahahaha

route yet. You may be right, but as of now, it looks like there about a 50/50 chance that they won't vote him out of committee.

[BurtWorm]

11. Those odds are not very good, considering Dems control the committee.

If you think Dems should stand firm against Mukasey anyway.

"Haha" is probably not the right word. "Boohoo" is more like it. :cry:

[senseandsensibility]

12. see below

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :r

[0007]

13. I'd faint if they did!

[deacon]

17. We don't need Alberto Mukasey. It will be an enormous congressional failure if he's approved.

[cali]

20. they should reject him because it would set a terrible precedent

but we're screwed either way.

[BurtWorm]

18. kick