ConfirmThem

Thank heavens you didn't post that over-the-top Crocker video on this site!

we have a modicum of good taste here at confirmthem. :-)

Legalities aside, his position makes sense for Utah.

Under the current legislation, Utah would lose its fourth seat if the district loses its proposed member of Congress. Bennett wants the Utah seat to stand no matter the court's ruling on the District of Columbia part of the bill.

If the Democrats feel there is no Constitutional problem, they will agree with this clause.

veto this bill if it ever comes to his desk?

interact re the possible soon to be AG nomination? I find it very helpful and healthy. Mukasey? Olson? Other? Why or why not?

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SupremeCourt/story?id=3586601&page=1

Lawyers for a Louisiana man who received a death sentence for raping a child petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to have his case heard before the justices.

Patrick Kennedy is the only person on death row for a nonhomicide offense. He was accused of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter in 1998, badly injuring her during the crime. She testified against him five years later at the trial.

Kennedy's legal team wants the court to declare Louisiana's law allowing the death penalty for child rape unconstitutional.

The petition asks the court to consider whether the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause permits a state to impose the death penalty for child rape -- a punishment usually reserved for those convicted of murder.

In an unusual move at the time, three of the justices — John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — released a statement that indicated they had reservations about the law. The justices said that the decision not to hear the case "does not in any way constitute a ruling on the merits."

Is there any chance that (Justice) Kennedy doesn't bail on this?

Personally, I don't think Bush should choose someone for AG who will create a huge confirmation battle. Such a battle will only serve to overload the Senate Judiciary Committee to the point where all district and COA nominations will be stalled indefinitely. Any new AG will only serve for 14 months at most, while district and COA judges can serve a lifetime. I would prefer the SJC spend its time on people who can serve the nation for longer than any new AG.

I doubt Kennedy would allow the death penalty to be expanded for use in non-murder cases.

Mukasey will be a fine AG. His articles on the Patriot Act and the Jose Padilla trial along with his trial experience show that he gets it when it comes to the issue the WH most cares about. He seems to know what he's doing and will run a tight ship at the DOJ. Is he the most conservative guy? Probably not, but there's still plenty of Federalist Society types in the DOJ and the OLC and SG's office. He'll be a guy that will basically serve out the term, clean things up from Gonzales, restore morale, etc... If by an unexpected chance a SC vacancy does pop up, the Fed Society types and Cheney will run the show anyway. He should be confirmed quickly and easily and perhaps Bush showing some good faith and going with him over Olson who the dems vowed to blcok will result in an extra COA confirmation. If the choice is Olson and no more Judges or Mukasey and 1-2 extra judges, I'll take the latter.

As for the LA case, I don't see why the law should fall, but I agree that AMK will probably join the liberals to strike.

Ironically this term is shaping up to be one where the liberals win all the big cases in a 180 turn from last term. We'll probably see all these stories about how the liberals have returned and reclaimed their power and how the conservative revolution is over.

That said, I think those decisions could help us in the 2008 election. Decisions that a)grant rights to AQ and terrorists b)strike down 2nd amendment protections and c)coddle child rapists will do wonders to stoke the base and our candidate should have a field day going after Hillary on them.

Here's an AP article on Mukasey:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-exec/2007/sep/15/091509213....

Go to National Review Online and peruse Andy McCarthy's writings. He's fantastic.

Here's Andy McCarthy's piece on Mukasey from last week on NRO:

Judge Mukasey Would Make a Stellar Attorney General
A gifted former prosecutor and renowned jurist could be just the right fit.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

It is not exaggeration to say that the United States Department of Justice is among the handful of our nation’s most important institutions. It is the fulcrum of our rule of law.

The department must be above reproach. It must enforce our laws without fear or favor. It must be the place the courts, the Congress and the American people look to without hesitation for the most unflinching recitation of fact and the most reliable construction of law. Creativity is welcome — it is the department’s proud boast always to be home for some of the world’s most creative legal minds. Defense of executive prerogatives is also essential — for the department is not the servant but the peer of the judges and lawmakers before whom it appears, with its first fidelity to the Constitution. Creativity, however, is not invention, and prerogative is not partisanship.

The department must foremost be the Department of Justice. Its emblem is integrity. We can argue about where the law should take us, in what direction it should evolve. We must first, however, be able to know what it is. For that, we must be able to rely without question on the department and its leader, the attorney general.

President Bush is about to select a new attorney general at a particularly tempestuous time. In today’s Washington, even national security has not been spared from our fulminating politics. In the cross-fire, we need stalwart leadership of incontestable competence and solid mooring in the department’s highest traditions. Without it, a growing crisis of confidence will grip not only the courts but field prosecutors across the nation.

To address such a crisis, the president is fortunate to have several able candidates. One I know particularly well, though you may not, would instantly restore the department’s well-deserved reputation for rectitude, scholarship, vision and sober judgment. He is Michael B. Mukasey.

I had the privilege of appearing before Judge Mukasey for nearly three years, from 1993 into 1996, when, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, I led the prosecution of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven other jihadists who had waged a terrorist war against the United States — bombing the World Trade Center, plotting to strike other New York City landmarks (including the United Nations complex, the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters, U.S. military installations, and the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels), and conspiring political assassinations against American and foreign leaders.

The case was bellwether for 9/11 and its aftermath, presenting all the complex and, at times, excruciating issues we deal with today: the obscure lines a free society must draw between religious belief and religiously motivated violence, between political dissent and the summons to savagery, between due process for accused criminals with a right to present their defense and the imperative to shield precious intelligence from incorrigible enemies bent on killing us.

The trial was probably the most important one ever witnessed by … nobody. In an odd quirk of history, our nine-month proceeding began at the same time as, and ended a day before, the infamous O.J. Simpson murder trial. While Americans were riveted to a televised three-ring circus in California, Judge Mukasey, in his meticulous yet decisive way, was demonstrating why our judicial system is the envy of the world: carefully crafting insightful opinions on the proper balance between national security and civil liberties, permitting the government to introduce the full spectrum of its evidence but holding it rigorously to its burden of proof and its ethical obligations; managing a complex litigation over defense access to classified information; and developing jury instructions that became models for future national-security cases.

All the defendants were convicted, and the sentencing proceedings, complicated by the need to apply novel federal guidelines to a rarely used, Civil War era charge of seditious conspiracy, ended in the imposition of appropriately lengthy jail terms. No one, however, could contend that the case had not been an exemplar of our system at its best. Indeed, in an unusual encomium, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, upon scrutinizing and upholding the judge’s work, was moved to observe:

The trial judge, the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, presided with extraordinary skill and patience, assuring fairness to the prosecution and to each defendant and helpfulness to the jury. His was an outstanding achievement in the face of challenges far beyond those normally endured by a trial judge.

No one should have been surprised. By the time the Blind Sheikh’s trial was assigned to him, Judge Mukasey had already forged a reputation as one of America’s top trial judges. (In my mind, he is peerless.) That was so because he was also one of America’s most brilliant lawyers. From humble beginnings in the Bronx, he had earned his bachelor’s degree at Columbia before graduating from Yale Law School in 1967. As a judge, he tolerated nothing but the best effort from prosecutors because he had, himself, been a top prosecutor. He well understood the enormous power in the hands of young assistant U.S. attorneys, the need to temper it with reason and sound judgment. He grasped implicitly and conveyed by example that the great honor of being a lawyer for the United States Department of Justice is that no one gets, or should expect to get, an award for being honest and forthright. It is a realm where those attributes are assumed.

In 1988, Michael Mukasey left a lucrative private law practice when President Ronald Reagan appointed him to the federal bench. He was exactly the credit to his court and his country that the president had anticipated. Quite apart from terrorism matters, he handled thousands of cases, many of them high-stakes affairs, with skill and quiet distinction. In his final years on the bench before returning to private practice, he was the Southern District’s chief judge, putting his stamp on the court — especially in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. Through the sheer force of his persistence and his sense of duty, the court quickly reopened for business despite being just a few blocks away from the carnage. Indeed, it never really closed — Judge Mukasey personally traveled to other venues in the District to ensure that the court’s vital processes were available to the countless federal, state and local officials who were working round the clock to investigate and prevent a reprise of the suicide hijackings.

Characteristically, the judge ensured that the Justice Department was able to do its vital work in a manner that would withstand scrutiny when the heat of the moment had cooled. Judges, himself included, made themselves available, day and night, to review applications for warrants and other lawful authorization orders — no one would ever claim that in his besieged district, crisis had trumped procedural regularity. And as investigators detained material witnesses and scrambled to determine whether they were mere information sources or actual terror suspects, Judge Mukasey made certain that there was a lawful basis for detention, that detainees were represented by counsel fully apprised of that basis, and that the proceedings were kept on a tight leash — under strict judicial supervision, with detainees promptly released unless there was an independent reason to charge them with crimes.

Judge Mukasey’s mastery of national security issues, reflecting a unique fitness to lead the Justice Department in this critical moment of our history, continued to manifest itself after 9/11. He deftly handled the enemy-combatant detention of Jose Padilla (recently convicted of terrorism crimes), forcefully endorsing the executive branch’s wartime power to protect the United States from an al Qaeda operative dispatched to our homeland to conduct mass-murder attacks, but vindicating the American citizen’s constitutional rights to counsel and to challenge his detention without trial through habeas corpus. Later, in accepting the Federal Bar Council’s prestigious Learned Hand Medal for excellence in federal jurisprudence, Judge Mukasey spoke eloquently of the need to maintain the Patriot Act’s reasonable national security protections. More recently, he has written compellingly as a private citizen with unique insight about the profound challenges radical Islam presents for our judicial system.

At this moment in time, the nation would be best served by an attorney general who would bring the department instant credibility with the courts and Congress, provide a needed shot in the arm for prosecutors craving a reminder of the department’s proud traditions, and reassure the public of the administration’s commitment to the department’s high standards. There are precious few people who fit that bill, and of them, Michael Mukasey may be the least well known nationally. But he is as solid as they come. Our country would be well served if he were asked, once again, to answer its call.

— Andrew C. McCarthy directs the Center for Law & Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

And here's Bill Kristol on Mukasey at the Weekly Standard:

Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General...
And conservatives should be happy.
by William Kristol
09/15/2007 6:22:00 PM

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that retired federal judge Michael B. Mukasey is the leading candidate to replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. President Bush is expected to announce the nomination as early as Monday.

Mukasey, 66, was nominated as a federal district judge for the Southern District of New York in 1988 by Ronald Reagan, and served until September 2006 with great distinction. Mukasey, widely viewed as one of the country's top trial judges, presided over important trials including the 1995 New York City terror trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven co-defendants, who were convicted and received lengthy jail terms. In an unusual statement, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, upon reviewing and upholding the judge's work, noted that Mukasey had "presided with extraordinary skill and patience, assuring fairness to the prosecution and to each defendant and helpfulness to the jury. His was an outstanding achievement in the face of challenges far beyond those normally endured by a trial judge."

Some of my fellow conservatives will be disappointed that the nominee won't be former Solicitor General Ted Olson. Olson would be a superb AG--and there is a case for nominating Olson, and inviting a Senate confirmation fight over issues of legal philosophy and executive power. There is also a case, though, for nominating an AG equally as first-rate as Olson, but one who'll be easily confirmed--and who will, I believe, come to judgments similar to Olson's on key issues of executive power and the war on terror.

While it's unfortunate that the first thing many conservatives will hear about Mukasey is that his home-state senator Chuck Schumer has praised him, that shouldn't disqualify him. Knowing Mukasey wasn't on Bush's Supreme Court short list, Schumer felt free to list him a few years ago as an acceptable "consensus" candidate for the Court. And in fact, I for one don't know enough about Mukasey's constitutional views to be sure I'd recommend him for a lifetime Court appointment. Nor would he perhaps be the best pick for AG at the beginning of a term, with hundreds of court appointments and other personnel and policy decisions in a wide range of areas ahead. But this is an appointment for the last fifteen months of an administration whose basic policies are set and which has few judges left to appoint.

The most contentious fights over the next year are likely to be on war-on-terror issues. And as Andrew McCarthy (no liberal softy on such matters!) explained on National Review Online, Mukasey is first-rate on these: "He deftly handled the enemy-combatant detention of Jose Padilla (recently convicted of terrorism crimes), forcefully endorsing the executive branch's wartime power to protect the United States from an al Qaeda operative dispatched to our homeland to conduct mass-murder attacks, but vindicating the American citizen's constitutional rights to counsel and to challenge his detention without trial through habeas corpus." Judging also by what Mukasey has written and said outside the courtroom about the Patriot Act and related matters, we can be confident he'll be effective at making the case before Congress and the public for tough legislation and sound policies on national security issues.

And he'll be hard to challenge when he does so. Mukasey testifying on behalf of Bush's FISA legislation will be like Petraeus testifying on the surge. He'll be an able public spokesman because he can't be caricatured as a partisan apologist, and the Democrats won't be able to lay a glove on him.

So my advice is this: conservatives should hold their fire, support the president, enjoy watching Chuck Schumer hoist on his own petard, and get ready for a strong attorney general for the rest of the Bush administration.

From the plurality opinion of the U.S Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia:

"Although it may be accompanied by another crime, rape by definition does not include the death of or even the serious injury to another person."

another interesting line is when it says that rape is highly reprehensible because it shows "an ALMOST total contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy of the female victim" and for her privilege of "choosing whom to have intimate relationships with". Almost total? You mean the plurality thought there was some aspect of raping a woman that didn't show contempt for her integrity and autonomy? It'd be interesting to ask Justice Stevens, the only remaining member of the plurality what part of a rape he found didn't show contempt?

It goes on to say that getting raped makes one "not nearly so happy" as one was before

This opinion is rather cavalier in its treatment of women. I wonder how Justices Stevens, White, Stewart and Blackmun would have felt if some thug bent them over and pounded away.

Personally, I don't think Bush should choose someone for AG who will create a huge confirmation battle.

Short of telling Reid/Leahy/Schumer to put their heads together and name the pick themselves, does such a person exist? Whoever it is, the Dems are going to demand he agree up front to endless independent investigations, testimony under oath in public before Congress for him and everyone under him, prompt response to any subpoenas that may come along, etc.

I agree with your comments about SJC neeing to focus on nominees, which is why I wish Bush had just recess-appointed someone in August under the excuse that it's only 18 months to go and the SJC didn't need any excuse to further delay getting nominees through hearings.

Nan Aron said if Bush nominated Mukasey, the Senate would view it as a "conciliatory" act.

Bush should ask for 3 extra COA nominees confirmed for this conciliatory act.

Thank you for everything. I'm convinced! If he should be the pick, I'll be very pleased.

I agree. Bush and McConnell should demand some reciprocal sign of "conciliation" concerning judges from the Dems if Mukasey is nominated.

Demand that the Dems immediately act on Keisler and the 4th Circuit nominees in exchange for nominating Mukasey. The 5th Circuit nominees appear to be moving along now, and the 6th Circuit nominees appear to be at a dead end, so I would push for Keisler, et al. above.

More on Mukasey at NRO's The Corner:

Mukasey for AG [Peter Wehner]

Bill Kristol and others are reporting that Judge Michael Mukasey may be picked by the president to succeed Alberto Gonzales as he next Attorney General. If so, that is good news indeed.

Like Bill and Andrew McCarthy, my understanding is that Judge Mukasey is outstanding in every important respect. He oversaw the trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and in doing so enhanced his reputation as one of America's finest trial judges (after establshing a reputation as one of American's finest prosecutors). Nominated as a federal district judge by President Reagan, Judge Mukasey has written persuasively and insightfully in defense of the Patriot Act; was respected by those who worked with him; and is the embodiment of legal excellent. He would be an outstanding attorney general (as would Ted Olson, a brilliant lawyer and legal mind, and George Terwilliger).

This pick will certain rank as among the president's most important. The attorney general and the agency he oversees has a huge role to play in keeping the United States safe from attack. Whatever drawbacks Alberto Gonzales may have had, he was a fierce protector of the American homeland — and it's no accident that we have not been hit in more than six years (a stunning, if little noted, achievement). Our next attorney general needs to be that, and a strong, effective public advocate who inspirits the Department of Justice. He needs to be a person who understands the nature of our conflict with radical Islam, the meaning of the American Constitution, respect for the law and the separation of powers, and a commitment to justice. He needs to be tough — and he needs to be tough-minded.

Judge Mukasey is all of those things — and if he is picked by the president, he would serve the nation in his new role as he has in his previous roles: with distinction and honor.

And more:

Judge Mukasey ... For Yourself [Andy McCarthy]

Why is it what Sen. Schumer and Nan Aron say any more relevant than that President Reagan thought highly enough of Judge Mukasey to put him on the bench? And while I haven't frankly been interested enough to inform myself about Nan Aron's views, what Sen. Schumer has said is that Judge Muksaey is a conservative lawyer who puts the rule of law first. That happens to be true. Schumer hasn't said he sees eye-to-eye with Mukasey on every issue — or even, perhaps, most issues. He has, instead, indicated that he believes Mukasey is a brilliant, honest guy who would carry out the business of the Justice Department with competence, fairness and integrity. That also happens to be true. Something is not wrong just because Senator Schumer says it.

And what would our reaction be if Democrats were lining up against the Judge for no better reason than that he was a Reagan appointee? We'd be screaming bloody murder.

My suggestion is that regardless of what Schumer, Aron, Reagan, Kristol, I or anyone else thinks/thought of Mike Mukasey, the best way to judge the Judge is by his own words, which people can read, for example, here and here — in addition to about a zillion published opinions.

This is not a hard call.

09/16 08:54 AM

to play Devil's Advocate (except I'm advocating against Schumer here, but you get the point ;)), Schumer's and Aron's recommendations come 20 years after Reagan's, so they might well have the benefit of more fullness of knowledge on the point.

again, I'm not saying he wouldn't be an acceptable nominee, but that last argument posted from McCarthy a silly one.

The fact that Reagan put him on the bench is meaningless...Reagan put Sandy O'connor on the bench and I wouldn't want her anywhere near the Justice Dept.

Mukasey is a moderate. Schumer has signed off on him. Much like the nomination of Craig Morford, the feckless Ferd Fielding will yield to Schumer and recommend the President nominate Mukasey.

I hope to God the President ignores Fielding or, better yet, fires him. There is no profit in nominating those who are dictated by Senate Democrats. In fact -- as with Morford -- it emboldens them to oppose excellent nominees and sets the precedent for further obstruction. This is precisely why Reid and others spoke out against Olson and precisely why the Morford appointment was such a complete disaster. Fielding MUST stop playing ball on the Democrats' terms. But he won't So let him go. Please.

BUT ... Mukasey or a moderate who is even worse will be nominated. Not Schumer, but some other Dem such as Levin or Mikulski or Leahy will put a hold on him. There ultimately will be no AG confirmed prior to the '08 election. (Where have we seen this before? Think Southwick).

Nominating a moderate, as some of the less experienced political hands have naively suggested on here, does not solve the judge problem. It only means that the AG slot as well as all the judicial positions will be tied up by the Dems thru '08.

A strong strategy would be to nominate a powerful figure not demanded by Senate Dems and to take the issue to the people in '08 when the Dems oppose him. This sets up a very nice winning platform point in the fall of '08.

Do the same with judges, and start -- right now -- with Keisler, Kethledge, and Murphy. To do otherwise will ensure 16 more montsh of what we have seen the past 9 (recall this handwringing: who will e this month's confirmation? will we do a deal for the 6th? is Keisler dead?)

Forget the pandering and the bullshit. Fight hard to get your people confirmed. That is what -- as elected officials in whom we place our trust and tax dollars -- you have an absolute moral obligation to do.

Very Truly Yours, RS

Nearly everything you say in your pompous rant above is wrong, or wrongheaded. Since I'm busy and don't have time to waste on you, I'll cut to the chase. Mukasey was not put forward by Schumer and the Dems, but was on the White House's original list and was early on suggested by knowledgeable conservatives. Schumer gratuitously included him on a list of acceptable SCOTUS nominees a few years back since he knew those names wouldn't be considered anyway by the White House. Nevertheless, Mukasey is a conservative - and more importantly, a top legal mind with the experience to thrive in the AG's position and do the job this administration and country need him to do for the next year. That he is also respected by some liberals should not count against him.

Here's today's Politico article re Mukasey:

Bush ready to pick Mukasey for A.G.
By: Mike Allen
September 16, 2007 03:21 PM EST

It’s nearly official: President Bush is preparing to name Michael B. Mukasey, a former judge who was nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan, to replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Republicans close to the process told The Politico.

"It came down to confirmability," said a former Justice Department official involved in the conversations.

Conservatives had been rooting for former Solicitor General Theodore B. (Ted) Olson, but Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed Wednesday to block his confirmation.

"The White House seems like they don't want a confirmation fight," said a Republican close to the selection process. "They think this guy is bulletproof from the left."

Adding a note of caution, the official said, "They want to make sure there's not a Harriet Miers rebellion from the right," referring to a Bush Supreme Court choice whose nomination was later withdrawn.

The White House, watching the congressional mood and calendar, is concerned about nominating someone who can quickly get to work rebuilding a Justice Department that has been demoralized and distracted by the travails of Gonzales.

His resignation is effective Monday, and he gave farewell remarks Friday.

The announcement will come as soon as Monday, the Republicans said. The White House would not comment on its plans or deliberations.

Mukasey, 66, was Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, until he went into private practice last year.

So a Texan who has long been part of the president’s orbit is to be replaced by a New Yorker who is little-known to Washington conservatives.

'Practical' choice

Before becoming a judge, Mukasey worked under Rudy Giuliani as a federal prosecutor in New York and is supporting the former mayor for president.

The choice signals conciliation by a White House that over the years has been known for confrontation.

The Republican sources said Bush will still fight hard on Iraq and the budget, and said they considered it foolish to pass up the chance to have a candidate likely to be confirmed swiftly.

White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding, a Reagan administration veteran, has been conveying open-mindedness as he consulted both parties on Capitol Hill about the pick.

The choice reflects the practicality of the aides now in charge of the White House: Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, Counselor Ed Gillespie and Deputy Chief of Staff Joel D. Kaplan.

Democrats, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee, had told the White House that Mukasey would be acceptable.

Back in 2003, Mukasey was one of five Republicans that Schumer suggested as potential Supreme Court nominees in a letter to Bush. However, Democrats are likely to have a measured reaction until Mukasey is formally vetted.

A senior Republican who knows the administration’s thinking about the nomination said Mukasey is “a solid, solid conservative.”

“He is known in the legal community as a conservative,” the senior Republican said, admitting: “He’s less known in the broader conservative community as a conservative.”

'Second Souter' fears

Some conservatives objected to the choice and "gave the White House an earful," according to one Republican familiar with the process.

Some of these critics raised the case of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, who was an enigma when nominated by President George H.W. Bush. He frequently is a liberal vote.

Contending that Olson's star power and stature would show Bush still has fight left in him, key Republicans said Olson would do the best job of getting a demoralized and distracted Justice Department back on track.

But the senior Republican said both Mukasey and the runner-up, George J. Terwilliger III, who was deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, would be winners in the job.

“Neither is the rock star that Ted Olson was, but they’re both as rock solid as he is,” the Republican said.
Republicans involved in the process said the selection boiled down to a blunt calculation: Which Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would vote to send Olson’s nomination to the floor? It was not clear that any of them would.

“The question about where the votes are obviously is important,” the senior Republican said. “There a big difference between a big fight in the first 15 months of and administration, or even a term, and the last 15 months.

"Do you run the risk of running out of time and having to start over after Congress adjourns, where you have a department that has … vacancies throughout the top echelons?”

In an unusual process amounting to an audition, Mukasey was to meet with several conservative leaders on Sunday in an effort to reassure them that he would be a solid pick, some of the Republicans said.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday” that he doesn’t “known anything” about Mukasey, but added that if “he understands he's not just the president's lawyer but the country's lawyer, I could support him.

“He has to pass that test for me, go through that filter,” Biden added. “Is he going to be the president's guy? Is he going to -- or is he going to stand up and defend the Constitution and be the people's lawyer as well? And I just don't know the answer to that.”

Unlike Olson, Mukasey does not have experience at Justice Department headquarters. Before Mukasey's nomination to the federal bench, he was assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District's criminal division when Giuliani was U.S. attorney.

He is a member of the Justice Advisory Committee of Giuliani's presidential campaign. His son Marc L. Mukasey is a partner at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, where the former mayor is a senior partner.

WTC bombing case

Michael Mukasey, who was born in the Bronx in 1941, got his undergraduate degree from Columbia College and his law degree from Yale Law School.

He was nominated to the bench by Reagan in 1987, and was chief judge from 2000 to 2006. He then rejoined the Manhattan-based law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, where he is a partner.

As judge, he presided over the trial of the "blind Sheik," Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Mukasey also signed the material witness warrant authorizing the arrest of terrorism suspect Jose Padilla in 2002.

Mukasey's law firm biography adds: "He also presided over major cases involving the dispute between Larry Silverstein and his insurers concerning insurance proceeds related to the World Trade Center site and the Motion Picture Association of America’s ban on the distribution of new movies to critics and award panels."

Mukasey was an editor of Yale’s law journal, according to his 1974 wedding announcement in The New York Times.

William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, praised Mukasey on Saturday night in an article titled, "Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General ... And conservatives should be happy."

Kristol wrote that "the most contentious fights over the next year are likely to be on war-on-terror issues," and he said that Mukasey "is first-rate on these."

Kristol added on “Fox News Sunday": "He's been generally supportive of Bush administration-type policies in the war on terror, but not down the line … a tough-minded conservative judge who will be a strong attorney general, not a movement conservative. I don't think he'll get into social issues, that sort of thing. Those Bush policies are already in place."

Last month, Mukasey wrote an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal about "the inadequacy of the current approach to terrorism prosecutions."

In 2004, he championed the Patriot Act when accepting the Learned Hand Medal for Excellence in Federal Jurisprudence, and his remarks were adapted to an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal.

"I think one would have to concede that the USA Patriot Act has an awkward, even an Orwellian name, Mukasey wrote, but added: “The statute … breaks down the wall that has separated intelligence gathering from criminal investigation. It allows intelligence information to be shared with criminal investigators, and information that criminal investigators unearth to be shared with those conducting intelligence investigations. I think many people would believe this makes sense … ."

Defending Giuliani against charges he had been overzealous in pursuing mobsters as U.S. attorney, Mukasey wrote in The New York Times in 1985: "The Mafia exists. It is not the creation of novelists or journalists."

"It has exacted a toll in misery that would shame the Inquisition and a toll in treasure that would embarrass the Pentagon. It consists not of dashing Robin Hoods or buffoons but of willful, disciplined men who have too long burdened all of us."

The others on the White House's list of finalists were Laurence H. Silberman, a senior circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and Larry D. Thompson, who was deputy attorney general early in this administration.

that the Dims will "give" anything the president might "demand" for nominating Mukasey. I wish it were otherwise, but they're feeling their oats even as they whistle past the graveyard. Yes, I'm mixing metaphors here. But the Dims feel powerful and optimistic because they don't understand how moveon.org went too far in it's attack on Gen. Petraeus. That, combined with Dim leaders not willing to stand up to moveon here, will contribute to the country turning against them. Hugh Hewitt's not being a "cheer leader" on this particular matter.

Just because Schumer mentioned him doesn't mean anything

Schumer's from NYC, so is this guy. He puts him out there to look good to people back home that he's pushing for them knowing full well the guy has no shot. Also, Mukasey is 66 years old. Perhaps his age had a lot to do with it. Faced with the prospects at the time of a 50 yr old John Roberts, Michael McConnell or Michael Luttig(the favorites in 2005), trying to sneak in a 65 yr old Mukasey was a smart move on Chuck's part.

Just because someone is suggested by a liberal or a democrat doesn't make them one. Look at Hatch and Ginsburg. I bet there were probably some democrats saying "how liberal can she be if Hatch is pushing her? we don't trust her. If she's ok with Hacth she's not ok with me" Ginsburg has been nothing but liberal

ALso, the fact is that this guy is going to be AG for a yr or so and really isn'g going to do anything big. If he was being put up for a 25 yr stint on the Supreme Court, ok, more skepticism would be warrented. But for a yr as AG when policy is pretty much set in stone already, if he's going to get confirmed and Olson clearly wouldn't, that's fine with me

This is apparently much firmer than the Olson balloon that floated a week ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush picks Mukasey as attorney general By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writers
14 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush has settled on Michael B. Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York, to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general and will announce his selection Monday, a source familiar with the president's decision said Sunday evening.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mukasey, who has handled terrorist cases in the U.S. legal system for more than a decade, would become the nation's top law enforcement officer.

The 66-year-old New York native, who is a legal adviser to GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, would take charge of a Justice Department where morale is low following months of investigations into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and Gonzales' sworn testimony on the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program.

Bush supporters say Mukasey, who was chief judge of the high-profile courthouse in Manhattan for six years, has impeccable credentials, is a strong, law-and-order jurist, especially on national security issues, and will restore confidence in the Justice Department.

Bush critics see the Mukasey nomination as evidence of Bush's weakened political clout as he heads into the final 15 months of his presidency. It's unclear how Senate Democrats will view Mukasey's credentials, but early indications are that he will face less opposition than a more hardline, partisan candidate like Ted Olson.

Mukasey has received past endorsements from Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is from Mukasey's home state. And in 2005, the liberal Alliance for Justice put Mukasey on a list of four judges who, if chosen for the Supreme Court, would show the president's commitment to nominating people who could be supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Last week, some Senate Democrats threatened to block the confirmation of Olson, who represented Bush before the Supreme Court in the contested 2000 election. Democratic senators have theorized that Bush might nominate Mukasey, in part, because he wanted to avoid a bruising confirmation battle.

The possibility that Bush would nominate Mukasey, however, inflamed some supporters on the GOP's right flank, who have given Mukasey less-than-enthusiastic reviews. Some legal conservatives and Republican activists have expressed reservations about Mukasey's legal record and past endorsements from liberals, and are already drafting a strategy to oppose his confirmation.

Mukasey was nominated to the federal bench in 1987 by President Reagan. He was chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York before he rejoined the New York law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler as a partner in September 2006.

He first joined Patterson Belknap in 1976 after serving as assistant U.S. attorney in the criminal division of the Southern District, where he rose to become chief of its official corruption unit. During his 18 years as a judge, Mukasey presided over thousands of cases, including the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was accused of plotting to destroy New York City landmarks.

In the 1996 sentencing of co-conspirators in the case, Mukasey accused the sheik of trying to spread death "in a scale unseen in this country since the Civil War." He then sentenced the blind sheik to life.

The Mukasey nomination could be Bush's last major Cabinet appointment.

Friday was the last day of Gonzales' 2- 1/2 years at Justice. Solicitor General Paul Clement will serve as acting attorney general until the Senate confirms Gonzales' replacement.

Gonzales' conflicting public statements about the firings of the U.S. prosecutors led Democrats and Republicans alike to question his honesty. Their charges were compounded by his later sworn testimony about the terrorist surveillance program, which was contradicted by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller and former senior Justice Department officials.

A congressional investigation into the firings recently shifted its focus onto whether the attorney general lied to Congress. The Justice Department also has opened an internal investigation into the matters.

At first, the president backed his embattled attorney general. At an Aug. 9 news conference, Bush said, "Why would I hold somebody accountable who has done nothing wrong?"

A little more than two weeks later, Bush announced that he had "reluctantly" accepted the resignation of Gonzales, who followed John Ashcroft's four-year stint as Bush's first attorney general. Bush said Gonzales, his loyal colleague from Texas who was his White House counsel before heading to Justice, had worked tirelessly to keep the nation safe.

Bush said opposition lawmakers treated Gonzales unfairly for political reasons. "It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud," Bush said.

Mukasey is hardly a liberal, for heaven's sake. At a glance, his ruling in the abortion/asylum case seems similar to Southwick's in the n-word case; i.e. he ruled the board acted within the proper guidelines when they made the initial ruling. The Dems will posture a little bit during his hearings, he'll make some comforting noises, and that'll be that.

He's certainly not a Trojan Souter or Trojan Reno who once confirmed will immediately attempt to have Bush & Cheney indicted over the US Atty thing. He'll only be there 14 months, he's solid on WOT, and the POTUS matchup will be set in five months. Not a big deal. Plus Bush is in no position to fight anyway.

BTW, for laughs, who were the other three names on Nan Aron's SCOTUS list along with Mukasey?

Even if Mukasey is a liberal (or moderate), I would far rather have a liberal as AG than as a justice or COA judge. The AG is a job you fill for a brief period of time. Also, the AG is responsible / accountable to the Prez.

MATTHEWS: What -- what -- what -- how do you define extremism?

ARON: Well, if there's a nominee who is tapped for the seat who opposed to Roe vs. Wade, that would constitute...

MATTHEWS: That's an extremist?

ARON: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: But a person who is for Roe v. Wade is not an extremist?

ARON: No, because Roe vs. Wade is great, a landmark precedent, just like Brown vs. Board of Education.

The AJC list of 4 was Ann Williams of the 7th, Ed Prado of the 5th, Stanley Marcus of the 11th, and Mukasey. Schumer sent these 4 and Specter to the President in 2003.

Are both Clinton CoA appointees first nominated to district seats by Reagan.

Of course, Chuckie dishonestly refers to them as Republican appointments.

she forgot to mention that up is also just like down.

What a lousy goddamn day in the Republic.

Really, what single one of you ever heard of Mike Mukasey previously from anyone on the right, much less as a person with the gravitas to serve as AG?

Bernie Kerik, Al Gonzales and Harriet Miers were GOP problems. This, however, is a problem of overriding and monumental concern. Our Cabinet officers and the top law enforcement official in America are now being selected by liberal Democratic Senators and Nan Aron of Alliance for Justice.

Nothing like working for years to protect presidential prerorgatives and then flushing all that work down the toilet with your last major appointment in office.

And by the way, this won't help get a single conservative judge confirmed.

What a nightmare.

The only solace in this nightmare is that a sizable number of the conservative majority will be working very hard to derail this losing nomination.

Very Truly Yours, RS

I'm not sure your rant deserves a reply but here goes: would you please name the names of the "sizable number of the conservative majority" in the Senate will work very hard to derail this nomination?

How much damage can a moderate (and I'm not even sure that Mukasey is really a moderate, he may very well just be a conservative with a good reputation in Chuckie Schumer's homestate) AG do in 14 months? My guess is not much. At least not as much a liberal Dem AG can make in four years under President Hillary. Bush does not have the political capital to waste on a long drawn confirmation battle. Look at how quickly Gates was confirmed after Rumsfeld left. Mukasey will be confirmed just as quickly.

I surely hope we have not sunk as deep as the Democrats - disliking somebody just because they are liked (or tolerated) by our opposition.

Lets build bridges to liberal Democrats while not abandoning our core convictions. Surely making the Democrats whine and squeal is not one of our core convictions and desires (though I understand none of us object to it much either :-).

If Mukasey is a solid conservative, supporter of the rule of law, supporter of the fight against terror, will lead the prosecution again pornography and other illegal activities, and will bring some 'bi-partisanship', I am all for him.

I would rather (1) get 90% of what I want, and get it easily and in a nice friendly way, making my enemies my friends, rather than (1) fight for 100% of what I want, divide the country, and create hard feelings and hatred across the aisle.

We need to live in the reality that many Americans don’t have a brain (or at least don’t know how to use theirs). Lets make smart moves such as this, building bridges to the Democrats, and hopefully they will respond positives, and confirm solid COA nominees. And if they don’t then the American people will clearly see who the ‘extremists’ are.

We have evidence to oppose Mahoney, Callahan & Prado to name three, other than just "Dems like them". What other evidence is there to oppose Mukasey? The abortion/amnesty case had nothing to do with Roe, and he's tough on WOT & crime, apparently.

And it sure doesn't look like Schumer & Reid told Bush, "Mukasey or else", tho granted Reid did say no to Olson (assuming Olson even wanted the job).

I want Bush to fight for judges, not over a lame duck AG who'll be completely irrelevant by President's Day.

We don't know what kind of influence Mukasey will have in choosing CoA or possibly SCOTUS nominees. That said, he'll probably be cut out of the loop on those anyway.

Ralph Neas, president of the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way, predicted Mukasey's confirmation, assuming he is willing to answer "legitimate questions" from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"He seems like a bona fide conservative Republican, not a right-wing ideologue," Neas said. "He seems like someone who would attract strong bipartisan support and who could help restore public confidence in the Department of Justice."

Very Truly Yours, RS

"He is thoughtful, independent, very much a person of integrity -- he's nobody's plaything," said Paul A. Engelmayer, a Democrat and former supervisor in the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan.

Very Truly Yours, RS

"While he is certainly conservative, Judge Mukasey seems to be the kind of nominee who would put rule of law first and show independence from the White House, our most important criteria," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a frequent critic of the Gonzales Justice Department, said in a statement. "For sure, we'd want to ascertain his approach on such important and sensitive issues as wiretapping and the appointment of U.S. attorneys, but he's a lot better than some of the other names mentioned and he has the potential to become a consensus nominee."

Very Truly Yours, RS

"We don't know what kind of influence Mukasey will have in choosing CoA or possibly SCOTUS nominees. That said, he'll probably be cut out of the loop on those anyway."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297017,00.html

"On a series of conference calls Sunday, conservative groups decided not to oppose Mukasey's nomination, despite some skepticism due to the liberal groups support for him. That opposition went nowhere as the groups were assured Mukasey would play no role, or a very limited one, in filling any Supreme Court vacancy. Conservative groups also decided Bush had no political capital left to fight for anyone but a Democratic-approved nominee. As a result, Mukasey is off to a good start and won't have to endure the same criticism that accompanied the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, Bush's former White House counsel."

Your comments seem to be implying that just because Mukasey has received postitive comments from liberals that he must automatically be liberal too. That isn't necessarily the case. Look at John Roberts. He got a lot of support from Democrat Washington D.C. lawyers when he was nominated. Did that make him a liberal?

have we pretty much decided that Leahy and Schumer get to decide whom Bush can nominate?

From a recent Thomas Sowell column: "Sometimes it looks as if the Democrats are out to win at all costs, while the Republicans are out to compromise at all costs."

Since we are likely to get nothing in return - at least nothing that we shouldn't have gotten anyway, such as votes on Southwick et al - I'm thinking Dr Sowell is spot on.

I can't imagine any of the present justices voluntarily retiring in the next 15 months. Why should they? The only ones who would want to retire due to age are all liberals who would much prefer a Dem president in 2009 to name their replacement. The chance that Bush will get to appoint a third Supreme Court justice is nil

is a pass from liberal groups. Not even RSL has pointed to a single ruling or other substantive item to provide any reason to oppose Mukasey.

to have a thread devoted excuslively to Mukasey, his nomination, and related matters?

since Schumer came out not too long ago and said (more or less) that he wouldn't get Bush get another SC nominee confirmed, it made me think maybe he knows something I don't.

SCOTUSBlog is reporting that Peter Keisler will serve as Acting Attorney General until Judge Mukasey's nomination as AG is confirmed. Paul Clement will lay down his Acting AG duties to focus on the upcoming Supreme Court term which begins in less than a month.

bk, isn't it exactly the opposite? Schumer knows it is very unlikely that there will be a vacancy.

That is why he easily can make statements, that will please the liberal left and he knows he won't be put to the test.

By the way, if there is a vacancy before March-May, it will certainly be a big election issue, and the opinion of the "general public" will determine what happens to the nominee. (if he is supported by 70% of the public, they cannot block him)
A vacancy after June-July will not be confirmed. (August recess, election recess....)

But I don't expect vacancies at all, see Bobo 48.

I think he's hedging his bets in the event that Stevens and/or Ginsberg leaves in a coffin.

I predicted a SC vacancy for summer 07, but there was none. I was wrong. If nobody retired in 07, surely nobody will retire in 08.