The Democrats' responsibility in the wake of Gonzales' resignation (Glenn Greenwald)

[kpete]

Glenn Greenwald
Monday August 27, 2007 08:30 EST
The Democrats' responsibility in the wake of Gonzales' resignation

.....................

Pressuring Senate Democrats right away on this is vital. There is no more important domestic political goal then ensuring that the DOJ investigative and prosecutorial machinery operates independently. Senate Democrats will have none of their usual excuses if they fail to compel the nomination of someone truly independent and/or if they sit by meekly and allow the appointment of someone whose independence is even questionable.

Whatever it takes -- repeated blocking of nominees, filibustering, protracted hearings -- it is critical that it be done in order to restore integrity to the DOJ. A less-than-independent replacement as Attorney General will be entirely the fault of Democrats if they allow it to happen. Conversely, by ensuring the confirmation of someone independent, Senate Democrats can take a major step in revitalizing the rule of law, revitalizing their political base, showing the country they stand for something, and making the case that the 2006 midterm election change of control actually meant something.


UPDATE: Commenters have suggested that Bush could bypass the confirmation process with a recess appointment, but Bush and Harry Reid have an agreement in place that there will be no recess appointments during Congress' adjournment:

There'll be no recess appointments this time around, Roll Call reports (sub. req.), meaning the White House won't be taking advantage of Congress' vacation to install any contested nominees. That's due to a deal between Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). . . .

Last recess, the White House made a number of controversial recess appointments, including Swift Boat backer Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium. In order to prevent that sort of thing from happening again, Reid had plotted to keep the Senate in "pro forma" session during the recess -- whereby the Senate floor personnel show up every three days to make it an official session. But now Reid and Bush have made a deal, according to Roll Call. Bush won't make any recess appointments and Reid has promised to move some of his nominees when Senate gets back in session.

Obviously, there is nothing truly binding about the agreement, and Bush could violate it. But in the Beltway world, that is a Draconian step that seems unlikely (though not impossible) for many reasons. Far more likely, it seems, is Bush's (reasonable) belief that Senate Democrats will be as accommodating as usual and confirm a replacement who is acceptable to the administration.

MUCH more at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?source=rss

[porphyrian]

1. Bush is a lame duck with nothing to lose from breaking the agreement not to make a recess appt.

Why in the fuck do our elected Democratic representatives keep trusting him to do anything other than exactly what he wants to do?

[robinlynne]

4. and they're going to approve his nominees? what a deal....

[slipslidingaway]

2. K&R thanks n/t

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. I wonder what Reid gave Bush in return for this "concession".

[robinlynne]

5. the promise to approve Bush nominees, according to the article.

I would have preferred leaving congress in session. seems like we got the losing side of a deal....again....

[KoKo]

8. moving "some of Bush's nominees" ....is like giving him the same crooks we've suffered

with during this whole administration. Probably Reid will allow some more crooked judges who will do away with Women and Minority freedoms. Gotta finish off stacking the courts for the coming civil cases against these thugs.

I've not seen Harry Reid do anything but compromise away everything that could have gotten Bush out in 2004 and spared the country the worst of what we've been through. Reid's stunts never paid off.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

12. I can't see how this kind of deal would help anyone but Bush. Let me get this straight:

If Bush promises not to use the recess to appoint his crappy nominee (to avoid the possibility that the Senate will not confirm), the Senate agrees to confirm whatever crappy nominee he appoints? :wtf:

[leftchick]

17. exactly

what the fuck indeed.

[northernsoul]

6. Whatever It Takes!

GG nails it, day after day. He's right, if some Bush insider gets appointed, Dems will be complicit.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Here's Where Winning Last Year Matters

Another Golden Glenn gem...how does he come up with all this good stuff and so quickly?

Having the majority in the Senate means Reid now sets the agenda on how and where the confirmation process goes...or doesn't.

First, hopefully Reid and Leahy have plans to call a pro-forma Senate session if boooshie tries a backdoor, recess appointment. But I don't see that happening. In fact, I see nothing happening.

For all intents, the DOJ has been non-functional since last January and the resignations and depressed morale has turned whatever's left into a bigger mess. There's not just Gonzo who needs to be replaced, but the Assistant AG...McNulty is gone and dozens of other aparachniks...most laywering up themselves.

Any nominee is the lamest of ducks...thus I can see this process taking a long time. Boooshie doesn't want an Attorney General...especially in light of all the criminal cases bubbling around his corrupt regime. You can't arrest the crooks if there's no sherrif.

[thecrow]

9. Gonzo's resignation is set for Sept 17

So when does Congress reconvene?

[blondeatlast]

10. A WH spokesman says there is no agreement; CQ, dated 8/2/07:

Majority Leader Harry Reid confidently predicted that Bush will not use his constitutional authority to fill top jobs without Senate confirmation. “We have an agreement with the president,” said Reid, D-Nev. “We don’t think there will be any.”

Privately, a leadership aide said amicable negotiations are under way, but a series of pro forma sessions during August remains a possibility.

A White House spokeswoman said Reid was wrong. “We do not have an agreement,” said Emily Lawrimore. “We don’t ever comment on the potential for recess appointments.”

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002565848.html

[snappyturtle]

11. Good find. Reid may have been schnookered....again. There's

"something" in the air.....I can smell it.

[blondeatlast]

13. Nope. the resignation is effective Sept. 17 and Bush can't appoint someone until he's gone--

therefore, the Senate will be back in session. Thanks to DUer onenote for the clarifiaction; I thought the same thing as you until he clarified it.

[snappyturtle]

19. I haven't heard it anywhere else though! I've had two tvs on and

and not heard the date September 17th.....

[robinlynne]

14. well I for one certainly believe what WH spokeswomen say.....

[blondeatlast]

16. My thoughts exactly, but I wanted to see if anyone else picked up on it. nt

[robinlynne]

18. ahhh the monday morning have you had your coffee DU test? nt

[KoKo]

15. Great Article...worth the whole read...also about the "Recess Appointment" appearing and disappearin

from the "known Repug Op" websites like Drudge & Politico.

It's looking like some discussion of Clement staying in for the remaining term to avoid fight with Congress...sort of a "back door" recess appointment which defies the Reid agreement if Reid wants to push it that way.

[KoKo]

20. kick