Michelle Malkin » The Mukasey confirmation hearings

The Mukasey confirmation hearings

By Michelle Malkin • October 17, 2007 09:15 AM

Attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey’s confirmation hearings begin today. A month ago, you may recall, he was billed as the “consensus candidate” and a “safe bet” encouraged by Chuck Schumer’s positive words.

But with the nutroots-ifed Democrats, there’s no such thing as a “consensus candidate” and “safe bet.”

And the Left plans on turning the hearings into their own smorgasbord of grievances and demands:

“The nominee is not allowed to leave the [Judiciary] committee without making clear commitments,” said Chris Anders, the ACLU’s senior legislative counsel. “We are looking for yes-or-no answers.”

For scores of progressive organizations, Mukasey’s confirmation hearings are a long-awaited opportunity to air a dry cleaner’s worth of dirty laundry. Liberal groups want more information about the mismanagement of the Justice Department, the administration’s torture policies, a perceived lack of civil rights enforcement, illicit wiretapping and the sacking of nine U.S. attorneys.

Wednesday’s hearing is their first big chance to get some answers. Finally, the liberal lawyers say, they have a Democratic-led Congress and a besieged administration desperately in need of an easy confirmation process.

“We’re hoping the Senate Judiciary Committee shows some spine and doesn’t let this nominee roll them,” Anders said. “If there’s anything this committee should have learned from the Gonzales experience, it was to get clear commitments up front.”

The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is cranked up to 11:

Hoping to avoid more missteps, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, Service Employees International Union and dozens of other liberal groups banded together to prep Congress. The organizations analyzed Mukasey’s 18 years of published opinions. They shared their research with staffers, sending reports, briefing books and suggesting questions to the committee.

Pat Leahy’s questions are here. Leahy’s still clapping his hands and jumping up and down over the fact that the nominee is not Ted Olson.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Uncategorized

Printer Friendly

comments (18)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

#1

On October 17th, 2007 at 9:24 am, mojoe said:

Wouldn’t everything be easier if the dems just issued a blanket statement saying:
We the undersigned do hereby and for all time oppose any and all choices made by President George Bush, whether it be Supreme Court nominees or the mushroom and cheddar omelet he had for breakfast.
Then, the adults could get on with the business of running the country and the dems objections would be duly noted.
#2

On October 17th, 2007 at 9:37 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

These people are obsessed. We get it- you are not and will not ever be happy until President Bush is out of the WH.
They are like a pack of wolves.

Completely agree, mojoe.
#3

On October 17th, 2007 at 9:44 am, ajmontana said:

Smorgasbord, mushroom cheddar omelette, throw in the grandstanding again and I’m officially hungry now.
#4

On October 17th, 2007 at 9:46 am, JHSII said:

30pcs, I think the hate from the left is even stronger than that – look at the left’s reaction to the Randi Rhodes non-story. They won’ be happy until they can put everyone who disagrees with them in an old soviet-style “reeducation” camp.
#5

On October 17th, 2007 at 10:08 am, docflash said:

AMEN,Mojo,it doesnt matter what GW does or has done,from day one he has been vilified by the left and their partners the MSM.He could find the cure for cancer and they would say it wasnt quick enough.If the Dems win the WH my (Start the impeachment sign) is going on my bumper and yard on day one.
#6

On October 17th, 2007 at 10:11 am, Tennessee Dave said:

If the ACLU is going to oppose Mukasey, then he must be okay.

“The nominee is not allowed to leave the [Judiciary] committee without making clear commitments,” said Chris Anders, the ACLU’s senior legislative counsel. “We are looking for yes-or-no answers.”

And who told this hump he could make the rules. He needs to go back to his cave and hang out with Osama.
#7

On October 17th, 2007 at 10:25 am, garyt said:

JHSII, I agree completely with you and can you imagine Bush nominating a supreme court judge. The Left would have their way on this too. Only a 60 GOP majority in the Senate could a GOP president confirm a conservative justice to the surpreme court. Any pro lifer would not stand a chance.
#8

On October 17th, 2007 at 10:39 am, ThatSamIAm said:

Why do we continually allow the ACLU to hijack this country? Don’t they answer to someone and isn’t that someone us? Conservatives need to get aggressive and start taking back the governmnet.

And as far as givng yes or no answers… when H. Clinton and company start answering anything yes or no then we can talk about it.
#9

On October 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am, ACHefty said:

My five favorite words in the Constitution: Congress shall make no law.
#10

On October 17th, 2007 at 10:52 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

JHSII, touche
#11

On October 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am, Boomer said:

If we get the type of nominee I would like to see, every one of this left wing groups would be running for cover under the flow of indictments and investigations coming their way for treason, sedition, and many other crimes. I am really getting sick of their interference in the operations of our Government. When will someone start looking into many of these organizations tax free status? I know I’m asking a lot, but where there is life there is hope.

On a lighter note I agree with ajmontana you have made me hungry too. LOL!
#12

On October 17th, 2007 at 11:08 am, backwoods conservative said:

Since there’s going to be a fight anyway, couldn’t Bush have gone ahead and nominated Ted Olsen?
#13

On October 17th, 2007 at 11:46 am, tony the tiger said:

#2 30 pcs of silver

These people are obsessed. We get it- you are not and will not ever be happy until President Bush is out of the WH.

heh. Remember the whole “Pulled the ‘W’ off all the keyboards” thing?

I cannot believe the level of incompetence these folks have demonstrated. The sad part is a lot of Americans won’t remember when it comes time for elections.
#14

On October 17th, 2007 at 12:32 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

Indeed I do.
#15

On October 17th, 2007 at 1:56 pm, Alphonse said:

Given the calibre of Bush appointments, probably won’t be long before we start calling his nominee Mostly Malarky.
#16

On October 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm, almeehan said:

Leahy is a nurd oops, that’s spelled with a T. That man is as much an enemy of the USA as any AlQaeda person. Dick Cheney had the right response to him
#17

On October 18th, 2007 at 5:09 pm, scooter56 said:

#13 tony the tiger heh. Remember the whole “Pulled the ‘W’ off all the keyboards” thing?

fell for that one huh!
#18

On October 19th, 2007 at 8:39 am, derel3433 said:

i don’t know about mukasey–he compared the troops to nazis yesterday and has denounced the torture memos.