No more leeway for Bush's apparatchiks: Gut the administration

Yesterday, with respect to Bush's attorney general nominee, Michael Mukasey, there appeared in the New York Times an op-ed so philosophically fundamental, so historically faithful and so immeasurably sensible, it was, I should hope, forced into the hands and before the eyes of each and every Senate Judiciary Committee member by staffers who've managed to retain some devotion to constitutional propriety.

It was contributed by Jed Rubenfeld, a Yale Law professor who, despite his lofty scholasticism, displayed an academically unique talent for writing in plain English. And the idea behind his writing was just as plain and unmistakably clear: There looms before the judiciary committee yet another intolerable menace to the rule of law -- courtesy, of course, of the intolerably menacing George W. Bush.

Rubenfeld was more than a trifle disturbed at Mr. Mukasey's response last week to the Senate panel's question -- one that, by mere virtue of its need to be asked, shows how far off the constitutional track we've careened -- about whether the president of the United States is obligated to obey the law.

The nominee's reply: "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

Any response, as Rubenfeld implied in his piece, that kicks off with a "That depends" should have triggered an abrupt halt to the proceedings, right then and there. Any mind not tragically disheveled by the ludicrous arguments of unitary executive theory would have stopped Mukasey in his muddled tracks. And any committee member not prone to collapse in incredulity at those arguments has no business sitting as a member of that vetting assemblage.

As Rubenfeld noted -- one imagines with head in hand, as in, "I can't believe I'm having to point this out" -- Mukasey's answer was "a dangerous confusion and distortion of the single most fundamental principle of the Constitution -- that everyone, including the president, is subject to the rule of law."

Just in case the judiciary committee still failed to grasp that singularly elementary point, the good professor repeated it, and this time with exasperated emphasis: "Under the American Constitution, federal statutes, not executive decisions in the name of national security, are 'the supreme law of the land.' It's that simple."

Were I a committee member, on the aforementioned Q&A alone I likely would have concluded my infamous 15 minutes with Mr. Mukasey by wishing him a pleasant and continued retirement in New York.

But, true to accommodating form, the Senate panel has instead taken the stern action of sending the nominee a letter, requesting clarifications, specifically on the federal judge's bewilderment as to whether virtually drowning someone constitutes torture. And, further true to form, and however outrageous, "it is still widely expected that he will be confirmed to the Justice Department job."

If I differ with Professor Rubenfeld at all, that difference arises from his exortation that "before voting to confirm [Mukasey] as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, the Senate should demand that he retract [his] statement" regarding presidential supremacy.

Hooey. All the president's men have demonstrated a gleeful willingness to retract whatever one wishes them to retract -- so they can then proceed, privately and with a clean bill of legal health, with whatever unconstitutional machinations they had cooked up in the first place. Those of any honor have long since departed from this criminal gang, and now spend their days denouncing and warning against it. And any still willing to sign on have already tipped their hand, Mukasey included.

Gut this administration, senators. Confirm no one. Position it leaderless and disarrayed and eviscerated in its waning days. The potential harm of top-level vacancies isn't nearly as foreboding as the absolute certainty of yet more lawlessness from any future Bush appointees.

****

to support this site -- please -- and thank you

Comments

[Tim Krause]

Bravo. Thank you for keeping this story alive and not letting MSM brush it under the rug. This man's sole goal in accepting the AG job will be to make sure GW will not be found guilty for the treason he has committed against Valerie Plame and the disrespect he has shown our Constitution.

[JeffLeon]

Anyone who thinks the cowardly Democrats will "gut this administration" or lift a finger against Bush's assault on the country also believes in the Easter bunny.

[Paul Tucker]

The judiciary committee should vote immediately not to recommend that the gentleman not be comfirmed to be the Attorney General. From the 1st day one is born, the constitution gives everyone the protection of the constutition and that no one is above the law! This includes the President of the United States!

The president not only should be impeached and thrown out of office before he does more harm, but Pelosi should also step down as Speaker in the House for her remark that"Impeachment is off the table!

[Paul Tucker]

My previous e-mail had a typo with one too many "Nots"
My intent was to say "not be confirmed". Instead the two nots in the sentence makes it appear that , in reality, the Committee should vote to confirm!

[ANGRY_DIANE]

The democratic party is now just an adjunt of the repub - I will not vote for this party again - I will instead vote for someone who returns this country to its former world position - we are hated by almost everyone now, and gee, I can't help but wonder why. Oh and before someone slams me with the fact I am not a "patriot" gee, and what defines a patriot in their view? its drinking the coolaid and following blindly - that is not what our "leaders" are supposed to do -

[Anan 7]

You see before you the value of warrantless wiretapping. Why else would the euphemistically titled "opposition party" roll over like a whipped dog before these usurpers of our country and Constitution?

BTW, you have all been declared casualties. Please proceed to the nearest Death Chambers.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Anan 7

[Hotrod54235]

What could possibly turn a 73 year old politician into a cowering dog, begging for forgiveness and promising to go back to being "insignificant"? This good man was threatened with something deadly. Maybe a visit from the good folks at Blackwater???

[Dana Hatch]

The fix was in from the start as with all of Bush's nominees. The Democrats, led by Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer, gush to the press what a fine upstanding genius the nominee is and that he should be nominated without a problem. Then they ask some token questions, designed to make them look tough on TV. The nominee responds with evasions, lies, and outright hostility. He is confirmed by a wide margin. Remember the confirmations of Sam Alito, John Roberts, Robert Gates and Alberto Gonzales? Same story with each and this time will be no different.

[kb_man]

"What could possibly turn a 73 year old politician into a cowering dog, begging for forgiveness and promising to go back to being "insignificant"?"

I'm not sure of the specifics, but I bet you the info got to the bu$histas via illegal NSA wiretaps. Its the same methods as J. Edgar Hoover, just with updated technology.