Not everyone is happy with Eric Holder as AG.

I know I am not, based on his pov on cannabis use and prosecution. His big love for big business doesn’t endear him to me either. As this writeup over at Law.com states, both sides of the aisle don’t like Mr. Holder for quite a few reasons:

* The right. The Republican Liberty Caucus says: “For years, Eric Holder has worked to degrade our civil liberties and weaken the Constitution and the values on which our nation was founded.”

* The left. TalkLeft is not happy about Holder’s efforts while U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., “to raise marijuana penalties and restore mandatory minimum penalties for drug crimes.”

* The legalization lobby. NORML Blog expresses concern about Holder’s “long history of opposing drug policy reforms, perceiving cannabis smoking by adults as a public nuisance worthy of constant harassment, promoting violent governmental intervention into the private lives of citizens who consume cannabis.”

* Free speech advocates. The Legal Satyricon says Holder “has a censorship goon past.” NewsBusters suggests Holder would “stifle free speech on the internet.”

* Civil libertarians. The blog Wizbang Blue accuses Holder of “pandering to religious right organizations” on separation of church and state.

Even legendary trial lawyer Gerry Spence is not pleased. Calling him “Eric Holden,” Spence says that when a lawyer works long enough for big corporations, as Holder did as partner at a corporate law firm, “the human psyche begins to dry up and one day will fall out on the carpet of the boardroom floor … like a dried up old prune.” Let us just hope that doesn’t happen until after the confirmation hearings.

Working from the middle is one thing, pandering to the wingnut base or the corporatocracy is entirely another. The Rethugs of course will slam him about the Marc Rich pardon..that is a given. But it is very strange to find myself agreeing with anything the right says..very strange feeling indeed. Below is Mr. Holder speaking about limiting free speech:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e4qGQukUVr

Tags: Eric Holder, Attorney General

Novak states Obama will pick John Edwards as AG if elected..

Since I think Robert Novak is a fucking tool..I really don’t know what to say about his latest column:

Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards would be named attorney general in an Obama administration.

Installation at the Justice Department of multimillionaire trial lawyer Edwards would please not only the union leaders supporting him for president, but organized labor in general. The unions relish the prospect of an unequivocal labor partisan as the nation’s top legal officer.

In public debates, Obama and Edwards often seem to bond together in alliance against front-running Sen. Hillary Clinton. While running a poor third, Edwards could collect a substantial bag of delegates under the Democratic Party’s proportional representation. Edwards then could try to turn his delegates over to Obama in the still-unlikely event of a deadlocked Democratic National Convention.

Does anyone else think this is bullshit? Why would any self-respecting Democrat talk to that fuckwit about anything?

tags: Robert Novak, John Edwards, Obama, Attorney General

Mukasey embraces Unitary Executive Theory

After watching the confirmation hearings for Michael Mukasey the last couple of days, I have come to the conclusion that he is a Bushie of the highest order…just more intelligent than the others in that select group. Watch the exchange between Mukasey and Russ Feingold below regarding Bush and his ability to disobey laws he doesn’t like or impede his power.

Mukasey tries to backtrack on the second day by saying its not a black and white issue..its a grey area. I call bullshit on that one right here and now. Its either the constitution or the president that holds sway. If BushCo believes in the Unitary Executive Theory and that it applies to all things Presidential, and there is no doubt about it my dear reader, they do…then they also believe they have the right to ignore parts of the constitution.

I call bullshit on that here and now. I also believe Mukasey will toss the Constitution under the bus when BushCo wants something bad enough.

As Crooks and Liars, and then Keith Olbermann pointed out tonight; “Mukasey vowed to end Justice Department “stonewalling,” and insisting he would resign if Bush tried to do something unconstitutional. No more partisan considerations in employment, Mukasey said. No more “unilateralism,” he promised.“

Then the second day of Q&A began. As the CarpetBagger Report points out it didn’t go too well for defenders of the Constitution:

In response to questions about authorizing surveillance, Mukasey suggested there may be circumstances in which the president can ignore federal law. In response to questions about waterboarding, Mukasey would only say, “If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.”

Its all bs and I know it and you know it my dear reader. When the Democrats finally quit pandering to Mukasey and asked him the hard questions..he sounded like a true Bushie, meaning that Presidential power trumps everything.

So, to paraphrase an old rock song: meet the new AG..same as the old AG.

tags: Mukasey, Unitary Executive Theory, Same shit different day

Mukasey’s role in the Padilla case..

Everyone is reporting tonight that King George will nominate a non-neocon Jurist for the next Attorney General Monday morning. Lets review one of the most important cases he sat on in the recent past, that of..Jose Padilla..and see how he comes through it. One of the mentions I have frequently read about Mukasey this evening is that he is a specialist in national security cases, and he believes in the ‘rule of law’..From Glen Greenwald’s Salon.com column:

Judge Mukasey repeatedly defied the demands of the Bush administration, ruled against them, excoriated them on multiple occasions for failing to comply with his legally issued orders, and ruled that Padilla was entitled to contest the factual claims of the government and to have access to lawyers. He issued these rulings in 2002 and 2003, when virtually nobody was defying the Bush administration on anything, let alone on assertions of executive power to combat the Terrorists. And he made these rulings in the face of what was became the standard Bush claim that unless there was complete acquiescence to all claimed powers by the President, a Terrorist attack would occur and the blood would be on the hands of those who impeded the President.

In demanding that Padilla be denied access to lawyers, the Bush administration argued that access to counsel would destroy its ability to interrogate Padilla, and that “enemy combatants” had no such rights. Mukasey emphatically rejected both contentions, concluding in his first decision (.pdf) in December, 2002:

Even giving substantial weight, as I do, to the President’s statement in the June 9 Order that Padilla is “a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States” and that his detention “is necessary to prevent him from siding with al Qaeda in its efforts to attack the United States,” there has been no fact presented to me that shows that the source of that danger is the possibility that Padilla will transmit information to others through his lawyers. By contrast, Padilla’s statutorily granted right to present facts to the court in connection with this petition will be destroyed utterly if he is not allowed to consult with counsel. On the facts presented in this case, the balance weighs heavily in Padilla’s favor.

The rule of law is a very powerful thing..even with an Asshat like Bush in the Oval office. Mukasey is a conservative, no doubting that..but will he be beholden to BushCo when he comes nose to nose with him over an issue that Alberto Gonzales would of undeniably given in to his BFF Bush about? Mukasey thinks all the ‘hullabaloo’ about the Patriot Act is for the most part..nonsense..We shall see my dear reader..we shall see.

Greenwald’s article is a good one..I suggest you take a few moments and read it if you want to know about the ‘new’ AG that King George is going to nominate according to several wire services this Sunday evening.

Tags: Attorney General, Mukasey, Jose Padilla

Bush picks his new AG

Bush has picked his next AG..Per Politico The Asshat-in-Chief has selected: 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 Politico.

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

Isn’t that something..he didn’t want a pissing contest

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. Well well, it seems Harry rented a set of nads over at Nads R Us..amazing no?

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. This has to be a good thing..doesn’t it? We can hope..

Some New Joe Bonamassa for ya’all..
http://www.divshare.com/flash/audio?myId=1994198-ebe

Tags: Mukasey, Attorney General nomination