Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Schumer's statement

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
dogindia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:17 PM
Original message
Schumer's statement
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/washington/02txt-schumer.html

Following is the statement issued today by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, announcing that he will vote in favor of President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey.

I will support Judge Michael Mukasey for attorney general.

I have spent the last nine months doing everything I can to get new leadership at the Department of Justice, and I believe the job will not be finished until we get a strong and independent attorney general. I believe Judge Mukasey is that type of person. Should we reject him, it is almost certain that an acting, caretaker attorney general will take office without the advice and consent of the Senate. Inevitably, that would enable those in this administration, who do not believe in the rule of law, and have done things that caused even former Attorney General Ashcroft to threaten resignation, to have the complete upper hand.

Only a strong and independent attorney general can return the Justice Department to what it once was and should always be. Under this administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping. The best we can hope for is someone who is independent, has integrity, will put rule of law first and, above all, will clean the stench of politicization out of the Justice Department. I believe Judge Mukasey will be that type of attorney general.

This is an extremely difficult decision. When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice. Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice. However, Judge Mukasey, whose integrity and independence is respected even by those who oppose him, is far better than anyone could expect from this administration. He is recommended by and reminds me of Jim Comey, another Bush nominee who — while he didn’t agree with us on the issues — showed the kind of independence and integrity this department needs.

I would also like to say something about torture, particularly waterboarding. I deeply oppose it. I supported Senator Kennedy’s amendment in 2006 and am a co-sponsor of his bill in this Congress. Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush, will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding as I hope it will.

This afternoon, I met with Judge Michael Mukasey one more time. I requested the meeting to address, in person, some of my concerns. The judge made clear to me that were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.

Judge Mukasey is a lawyer’s lawyer. He will not leap to quick judgments. When we want him to do so, such as on torture, we will be disappointed. But when he resists those in the administration who want quick and facile answers, so they can get their way, so they can roll over civil liberties and blot out separation of powers, it is they who will be disappointed.

I realize that, should he become attorney general, Judge Mukasey and I will disagree on many issues. I have told him that I will battle just as fiercely against him as I did against previous attorney generals when we disagree.

These are troubling times at the Justice Department. We cannot afford or allow the department to languish and limp along for the next 14 months. I deeply esteem those who believe the issue of torture is so paramount that Judge Mukasey’s views on it should be the sole determinant of our vote. But I must respectfully disagree. The Justice Department is a shambles: politicized and demoralized. The belief and hope that Justice Mukasey, with his experience, independence and integrity, can restore the department motivates my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hey Schumer: Go eat shit you worthless fucking coward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. My statement to schumer
you are now an enabler of war crimes.
I hope history sees that you are punished as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. after the first line, i could care less what he has to say. fuckchuck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Hell yeah
FUCK CHUCK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. When is this POS up for re-election?
He needs a primary opponent RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!!111
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. "A lawyer's lawyer"? That's a joke. He truly supports a Bush** lackey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. What I don't get . . .
Is that Schumer clearly believes the administration's actions constitute torture and clearly believes members of the administration have ignored the rule of law . . .

Ok, shouldn't he be doing everything in his power to bring those members of the administration to account?

It seems almost Alice in Wonderland to me. "Sure they torture, sure they treat the Constitution as a suggestion. Anyway, I'm going to vote for their nominee and do nothing whatsoever to bring the full power of the Senate against an executive I believe to be out of control."

Talk about shirking your responsibility. Protecting the constitution should be a politician's most sacred oath. And yet the abuse of it seems almost like, "Meh, whatever."

I guess D.C. does that to people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shoopnyc Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. Okay New York...
...it's timeto get real...we may have two open seats for Senate next year...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stirlingsliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. Gee, Senator Schumer
Arrrrrggggghhhhhhh.

Gee, Senator Schumer, you used so many words.

Couldn't you just have said this:

"I will Vote 'Nay' on the appointment of Mr. Mukasey to be Attorney General".

I guess when you can't do the Right Thing, you need to use lots and lots of words to try to justify the unjustifiable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
10. Fuck, here we go again, a dem caving to this administration, eom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
11. My statement to Schumer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
12. Why not impeach, if he knows it's THIS BAD??!!???
Edited on Fri Nov-02-07 05:55 PM by Breeze54
:wtf:

He says he's trying to spare us and the DOJ from 'floundering' but the WHOLE country is
floundering with this asshat in the WH!!! Hey Schumer? You could stop all of this!!!!

"Should we reject him, it is almost certain that an acting, caretaker attorney general will take
office without the advice and consent of the Senate. Inevitably, that would enable those in this
administration, who do not believe in the rule of law, and have done things that caused even former
Attorney General Ashcroft to threaten resignation, to have the complete upper hand."


So? A Congress "approved" appointee is better than an "non-approved"?

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE DIFFERENCE???? YOU STILL HAVE NO SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:banghead:

And will only whimper and complain...and do NOTHING ABOUT IT!!!!! :grr:

You're supposed to be a 'gate-keeper'!! NOT A DOORMAT!!!!

:kick: & Recommended



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. What is he gonna say when its OUR TROOPS Being Tortured? Esp when the terrorists say "You guys do it
to"..."Ya started ...we finish it"

What is Chuckie gonna say to the Parents, the wives??? That their sons/husbands died a horrible death due to torture cause we started the whole mess?

How the fuck can these guys sleep at night....?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC