Oh, Please
Knowing that her defection would cause an uproar, Sen. Dianne Feinstein decided to cover her backside with an op-ed piece which the Los Angeles Times conveniently published today. In the piece, California's senior senator attempts to justify voting for the confirmation of a man who apparently is incapable of stating that water boarding is a torture technique and is therefor illegal. Even a quick read of her justification shocked me by its obvious reaching.
During a long career in public service and private practice, Michael B. Mukasey has forged an independent path as a lawyer and federal judge. He has presided over 1,600 cases in almost 19 years on the bench. He has extensive experience on national security cases -- presiding over such critically important cases as U.S. vs. Rahman and Padilla vs. Bush. In the Omar Abdel Rahman case, 10 defendants were given prison sentences ranging from 25 years to life.
OK, so Judge Mukasey is a "hanging judge" when it comes to defendants charged with terrorist activities. I'm not so sure that qualifies anyone for the post of Attorney General or any other position. What Sen. Feinstein seems to overlook, however, is that a judge does more than issue a sentence at the end of a trial. The judge must also make rulings during a trial which are often critical to a finding of guilt or innocence, such as whether evidence is admissible or not. Confessions obtained under duress or torture should not be admitted, nor should evidence obtained from others under the same circumstances. Letting evidence in or keeping it out solely on the basis of "state secrets" denies a defendant the basic right of confronting his or her accuser. The Padilla conviction might not have happened if he'd had a judge willing to provide him with these rather basic constitutional guarantees.
But Sen. Feinstein feels there are other, important reasons to confirm Mr. Mukasey:
I believe that Judge Mukasey is the best nominee we are going to get from this administration and that voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the White House to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and to diminish effective oversight by Congress.
We should confirm a man who refuses to answer a question unambiguously because the next nominee will probably be worse, and besides, the president will just do a recess appointment if we don't? Oh, please. Maybe if the president sees a Congress that doesn't bend-over at his every command, he might be forced to appoint someone who is actually qualified. Maybe not, but we'll never know as long as senators such as Dianne Feinstein and Charles Shumer keep assuming the position.
Her conclusion is the real kicker, however:
The bottom line is this: I hope that Judge Mukasey will fairly and evenhandedly represent the American people and direct the Justice Department wherever the facts and the law lead, not where the White House dictates.
Hope.
Yeah right.
That and $7 will get you a latte.
During a long career in public service and private practice, Michael B. Mukasey has forged an independent path as a lawyer and federal judge. He has presided over 1,600 cases in almost 19 years on the bench. He has extensive experience on national security cases -- presiding over such critically important cases as U.S. vs. Rahman and Padilla vs. Bush. In the Omar Abdel Rahman case, 10 defendants were given prison sentences ranging from 25 years to life.
OK, so Judge Mukasey is a "hanging judge" when it comes to defendants charged with terrorist activities. I'm not so sure that qualifies anyone for the post of Attorney General or any other position. What Sen. Feinstein seems to overlook, however, is that a judge does more than issue a sentence at the end of a trial. The judge must also make rulings during a trial which are often critical to a finding of guilt or innocence, such as whether evidence is admissible or not. Confessions obtained under duress or torture should not be admitted, nor should evidence obtained from others under the same circumstances. Letting evidence in or keeping it out solely on the basis of "state secrets" denies a defendant the basic right of confronting his or her accuser. The Padilla conviction might not have happened if he'd had a judge willing to provide him with these rather basic constitutional guarantees.
But Sen. Feinstein feels there are other, important reasons to confirm Mr. Mukasey:
I believe that Judge Mukasey is the best nominee we are going to get from this administration and that voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the White House to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and to diminish effective oversight by Congress.
We should confirm a man who refuses to answer a question unambiguously because the next nominee will probably be worse, and besides, the president will just do a recess appointment if we don't? Oh, please. Maybe if the president sees a Congress that doesn't bend-over at his every command, he might be forced to appoint someone who is actually qualified. Maybe not, but we'll never know as long as senators such as Dianne Feinstein and Charles Shumer keep assuming the position.
Her conclusion is the real kicker, however:
The bottom line is this: I hope that Judge Mukasey will fairly and evenhandedly represent the American people and direct the Justice Department wherever the facts and the law lead, not where the White House dictates.
Hope.
Yeah right.
That and $7 will get you a latte.
Labels: Justice Department, Separation of Powers
posted by Diane at 4:56 AM
1 Comments:
And what on earth furnishes the basis for any such hope?
I'm deeply disappointed myself. My Senator, Schumer, is the other one who's facilitating this horrible person.
Will we ever get our country back?
Post a Comment
<< Home