Rumors are flying today that the White House has decided to avoid a major fight with the Democratic controlled Senate by choosing to fill the opening for U.S. attorney general with retired Chief Judge Michael Mukasey of the Southern District of New York.
Mukasey was proposed for the job in the spring by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the third ranking Senate Democrat and an influential voice on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will vet whoever President Bush picks as his nominee to head the Justice Department. While that doesn't necessarily translate into Schumer's support during the confirmation process, the senior senator from New York would have to think long and hard before shooting down the nominee he suggested.
Mukasey's name may have been leaked by conservatives, in a last ditch effort to derail him. Some conservatives prefer the other name most often mentioned as a replacement for the departing Alberto Gonzales: Ted Olson, the former solicitor general in the Bush administration. Olson barely squeaked by in a 2001 senate confirmation vote for that position, largely because of his ties to the conservative attacks on the Clinton White House. Olson wrote highly critical articles of Attorney General Janet Reno during the 1990s.
Speculation is that the White House will make an announcement Monday.
Comments (3)
Did Senator Schumer "Brain" Hank Morris tell the Senator to suggest Retired Chief Judge Mukasey ???????
We need to keep in mind that Hank Morris is the "BRAINS" behind the Senator Schumer.
It was the Hank Morris the "BRAIN" That made Congressman Schumer Senator Schumer.
I am a died in the wool Democrat. However, I know Judge Mukasey personally and he is a good man. I am surprised he would be considered after his Padilla decision. If we must have someone chosen by the Bush people, Michael Mukasey would be a good option.
CNN Debate Question for Mukasey:
In 1933, Hitler altered dictionary definitions as a method of manipulating the masses. Later, that year, his method was adopted by the United States Government.
According to one of the current Presidential candidates, following the report of the scandal of Abu Ghraib, Congress altered the definition of the word “torture” to mean, only, “physical abuse which leads to organ failure or death”, rather than the original definition of “any physical or emotional torment”.
Technically (=), the only literal and, thus, legal parameters of the Constitution of the United States of America are the full definitions, word for word and punctuation included, within the Unabridged English Dictionary of 1776 which was used by Benjamin Franklin [Library of Congress], who signed, both, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.
Given that the term “literal definition”, mathematically (=), does not equal (=) the term “liberal interpretation”, and given that the period at the end of any sentence, literally (=), means “this statement is complete, subject and predicate included”, will you determine to respect the collective intellect of our Forefathers and so formally advise the Executive, Congressional, and the Judiciary Branches in order to make certain that the literal (=) parameters of our beloved Constitution, as our venerated Forefathers understood it to mean, are no longer violated?
Thank you.
Warm regards,
Jane Smith
News Director/Anchor/Senior Analyst