|
I got this today from American Progress: Clearing the Decks for Mukaseyhttp://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/OCTOBER 4, 2007 JUSTICE Two weeks ago, President Bush nominated retired federal judge Michael Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as the nation's Attorney General. While no date has been set for his confirmation hearing, the process has moved forward with concerted talks between the White House and congressional leaders "to lay the groundwork for a hearing on the nomination." On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee received a 45-page questionnaire from Mukasey, "providing important information necessary to begin a complete review of his record." In a press briefing yesterday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino urged the Committee to "schedule a hearing soon and get the AG confirmed as soon as possible." But a hearing will not occur before Oct. 16, when Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) meets with Mukasey for a second time to discuss his nomination. In a letter to Mukasey yesterday, Leahy indicated that while he will schedule a hearing soon enough, Mukasey's nomination could hinge on his "willingness to answer questions the White House won't about a litany of issues." "The White House has chosen not to clear the decks of past concerns. ... hose matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure," wrote Leahy.
VITAL QUESTIONS:
In his letter yesterday, Leahy laid out a series of issues on which Mukasey would need to put himself on the record, ranging from his views on executive privilege to whom he will bring in to staff the Justice Department. Regarding executive privilege, Leahy wants to find out if Mukasey thinks "it extends to the actions and emails of political operatives in matters in which the President was not personally involved." Leahy also wants to know if, in Mukasey's view, "the President has authority to override legal requirements and immunize acts of torture." The question of torture is especially salient at the moment in light of revelations in The New York Times today that former Gonzales "approved" a secret "legal memorandum" that was "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency." Mukasey has signaled to conservatives that he supports Bush's torture policy. Hoping to head off the excesses of Gonzales's tenure, Leahy also wants assurances that Mukasey will "ensure that legal advice from the Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is independent and protected from political influence." The OLC under Bush has taken on an unprecedented "advocacy role" for the administration's legal positions.
CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH:
Though Mukasey is "expected to draw few objections" in the Senate, his nomination has engendered some backlash from movement conservatives. Claiming that Bush "unwisely" sought a consensus nominee, conservative columnist Robert Novak eviscerated Mukasey in a recent article, writing that he is "not well qualified to be attorney general by any rational standard." Unsure of his position on the issue, anti-abortion groups and activists have been the most vocal in questioning Mukasey's nomination. "President Bush has blown another chance to energize the discouraged, disheartened, and disillusioned base," conservative activist Richard Viguerie told the Associated Press. "What we are doing is reserving judgment and emphasizing caution," said Brian Burch, president of the Catholic-based advocate group Fidelis, who is wary of Mukasey's relationship with Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-choice. In the Senate, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is concerned about one of Mukasey's former clients, a "dial-a-porn" service. "I want to know what his attitude is toward prosecuting pornography," said Brownback. Brownback also intends to ask Mukasey "his views on the legal debate surrounding abortion."
THE NEED FOR INDEPENDENCE:
Though Mukasey appears to be a better pick than other potential Bush nominees, the Senate must determine whether he would assert true independence as Attorney General. Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Mark Agrast writes, "The Senate must consider carefully whether, if confirmed, Judge Mukasey will carry out his duties with the independence and integrity that eluded his predecessor." Before being confirmed, Mukasey should be put on the record about how he will approach the legal overreaches of his predecessor. Would Mukasey have said no to warrantless wiretapping? Would he have signed off on torture? Or refused to allow the White House to intercede in the Justice Department's affairs? In his letter, Leahy also sought to ascertain whether Mukasey would "improperly use" his "position" to benefit his longtime friend, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is running for President. The White House has said that Mukasey will recuse himself in cases where Giuliani is concerned, but Leahy wants assurances from Mukasey himself. In his answers submitted to the Judiciary Committee, Mukasey indicated a solid record of recusing himself when conflicts of interests could be perceived. I have to read more about it but I think Leahy is an honorable guy and will do the right thing.
|