It's no mistake that Mukasey's other hand is under the table. His fingers were crossed.

-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

John Yoo and Mukasey are fascists.

Bet Cheney tore Old Mike Mukup a new one when he got back to the house,

if I may quote, "I f*&%$n' told you not to mention that g*&%$#n 4th amendment bulls&%t."

Where are the demands for their resignations and trials?

Are we to depend on the ACLU for that too?

Listen, Paulie my point isn't that the president can just nominate anyone he wants. If the president wanted to nominate a convicted murderer, then, of course, the Democrats would (and should) reject that nomination.

However, if the candidate has reasonable credentials which qualify him or her for the position, and Mukasey does, then you can't just shut down the DOJ. In real life, we would like to not have the President appoint, and the Congress confirm "political lackeys", but that's the way it works.

Moreover, Democrats do the same thing (although maybe not to the same extent). As a president, you appoint the people who agree with you, not those who oppose you. You want loyalty and qualifications, but most of all loyalty. If I can't trust you, then how can I work with you? This is true of both Democrats and Republicans.

I shudder to think what additional damage these clowns could inflict in the next 7 months.

Domestic military actions???? WTF? Every time I hear or read that my blood boils. The only "domestic military action" that is permissible it defending the US against a military attack. All other "domestic military actions" are illegal uses of the military to subdue civilians exercising the rights we hold under the Constitution.

There have been absolutely no military attacks against our country since Pearl Harbor, and a very few minor attacks during WWII. Those were the times when the military has to be allowed to perform their mission to defend the country. Since then, there have been no allowable domestic military actions,

Now, back to the Constitution - no one, including the President, the Congress and the Courts has any authority or power not given them by the Constitution. Read the 10th Amendment:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Attorney General, the Office of Legal Council, an all other federal agencies cannot ever amend any single word in the Constitution, no matter if Congress agrees or not.

Ms. Feinstein missed the mark.

The 4th applies to “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

During the discussion over whether AG opinions worked as "Get out of Jail Free Cards" for illegal surveillance Mukasey asserted that following executive branch opinion in any matter under executive authority was - as a matter of law - reasonable.

Supporters of the Imperial or Unitary Executive will tell you that the executive branch has all the authority in war time and no search ordered subject to this authority can be unreasonable.

I would have liked to have her ask whether it is the AG or executive branch’s position that the military can conduct a search without a warrant or FISA procedures within targeted toward a US citizen in the United States.

I’m reasonable certain he would have said that under certain circumstances it was.

Hoppy, I know this sounds like maudlin internet bullshit, but the America you are describing is exactly the one I thought I knew and certainly the one I loved. The Constitution of the United States, in its form, formation, and approx. 200 years of functioning was a wonder of the world. Perhaps future scholars will be in a position to determine whether the Constitution failed the Nation or the Nation failed the Constitution, either way I imagine them looking at the situation and asking, "How do you f*** that up?"

Sigh

The Mukasey-Congressional dance needs to end. This outlines some concerns, and proposes a course of action based on Mukasye's doubletalk.

Congress isn't leading; and the President and Mukasey aren't fully complying with the Framer's intent. This crew refuses to fully assert their oath office, nor fully enforce the Constitution. This must end. Now. The public needs to work through the State AGs to make the Congress and President fully enforce and comply with the Constitution.

Time for us to set a deadline: Either you have a Senate trial to challenge what Mukasey said and what the President continues to do; or we put on the table State AG indictments against Members of Congress, and openly discuss a new system of oversight that will compel US government officials to fully enforce the law.

First, Richard, I agree with you loyalty to American law has to trump loyalty to the president. However, I don't think the issue is so clear cut as you would like to believe; loyalty to law and loyalty to the president are in constant conflict, at best. In other words, where do you draw the line between the two. You seem to think that this line is somehow crystal clear. It's not. (Think president Clinton and Warren Christopher interdicting the use of the word genocide during Rwanda; politicians of all stripes use specious justifications all the time.)
The difference between you and I is that you seem to be talking about the ideal, whereas I'm talking about what actually happens.

Second, Torrana, go back and read my previous post. I never said that the Congress should not challenge the validity of a presidential nomination and/or appointment.

Third, joevan, read the very bottom of the TMP article, it states:

"The Washington Post reported last week that the Justice Department "repudiated the idea that there are no constitutional limits to military searches and seizures in a time of war, saying it depends on 'the particular context and circumstances of the search.'"

Finally, and this is my main point, politics is not always about what's good. Politics doesn't always produce the best possible outcome (look at George Bush), like I said before, compromise is the necessary precondition for political action: you win some and you lose some.

Moreover, if you think politicians don't value loyalty over the supposed "rule of law," then you don't understand how politics works. If you're the president, the last thing you want is to have your authority subverted by one of your own subordinates. How are you supposed to govern if people don't even follow your directives?

The president says, "I want such and such, now make it happen." And you comply. And anything in between absolute clarity can be justified based on any number of specious claims. (The problem, however, is that politics is the art of obsfucation, it's designed to minimize the amount of crystal clear ground.) In the long run person A says to person B, "How can you be so sure that your interpretation of the "rule of law" is correct?

And so goes the world....

THE IMPEACHMENT WAS AVAILABLE, and witnesses were available to corroborate:

----3 SOUTH DAKOTA MURDERS OF MY KNOWN ASSOCIATES;

----Conspiracy to OBSTRUCT CONGRESS, by murdering DASCHLE'S EX CHIEF OF STAFF, RICH GORDON, believed to be conspiring with Daschle to organize an review of the RCMP CANADIAN WARRANT FROM MIAMI FBI AGENT TERRY NELSON'S DRUG PIPELINE IN MONTANA...with GOP Gov MARC RACICOT (good friend of Bush, second on list behind Gonzalez for US ATTY GEN after Ashcroft melted down into a puddle of his own fear, grief and sweat;

----CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT CONGRESS when a Sen Jud Committee witness contacted Sen Grassley with a ten page memo leading to the outing of THE NSA TSP PROGRAM;

----CHIPPING, TORTURE, AND CONSPIRACY TO TAMPER WITH A CONGRESSIONAL WITNESS NAMED THOMAS S. BEAN who signed a 47 page DOJ OIG Complaint, and ten page memo to Grassley;

----CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FED CRIME OF VIOLENCE WHILE CONSPIRING TO TAMPER WITH A WITNESS NAMED CHRISTINA MOORE who was murdered to stop ROBERT MOORE'S REPORTING ON CHENEY'S ENERGY TASK FORCE AT THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY;

----and a whole lot more, like...WELLSTONE MURDER USING DOD DARPA WEAPON CALLED A EMP pulse cannon, NSA 902nd Counterintel Group's CALEA wiretap on Wellstone to find his flight plan, and what airplane he was using to get to Eveleth, Mn...Minneapolis FBI's prior knowledge and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AFTER THE FACT when they illegally seized the Duluth, Mn, airport logs showing when they landed with prior knowledge...etc.

First off 714Day, do you even know what a prevarication is? At the very least, point out where I'm prevaricating. LOL.

"My understanding is that is not operative."

Gee, I feel a lot better. Let's just hope his "understanding" matches reality.

zoomy...you write and think well for a mere pup and I'm glad we're on the same side. However, just think about this: loyalty to principals (rule of law, truth, limited government, whatever) and to organizations which share those principals (the Democratic party, the Better Business Bureau, you name it) is different than loyalty to an individual.

Loyalty above all to an individual breeds a cult of personality and a belief that law is based on person, not on principal. You get Nixon saying if the President does it, it's legal.

Think of political loyalty as a pyramid. At the bottom, the base of the pyramid, supporting everything else is loyalty to principal. At the top, the smallest, most brittle, most dispensable part, is loyalty to a person.

Over and out.

jwr, you fail to account for many principals lacking "any" principles.

OTOH, many subordinates, informed in principled action, could possibly "declassify" Yoo's un-principled and legally unenforceable "memos."

Machiavellian, but untrue?

...many principals lacking "any" principles.

& you're right. Makes absolutely no difference at all.

Ms. Feinstein missed the mark.

The 4th applies to “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

No. This is not what the Fourth says.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth stands for the proposition that the goverment shall not engage in unreasonable searches. The way to protect against this is to require warrants that are supported by probable cause. Without that probable cause, the search is unreasonable and can't be done.

If you start from the premise that only "unreasonable" searches are covered by the Amendment, then the Amendment wouldn't mean anything. This is because if a search is unreasonable, a warrant wouldn't issue. In fact, a better way of describing the requirements of the Fourth is to say that it only applies to "reasonable searches". Unreasonable searches are never OK.

It is sort of a cart before the horse way of looking at things.

Zoomy-

Here are my two cents, fwit.
I've been an elected official for 7 years, in a small city in Massachusetts.

The Mayor, the President do have the right to nominate anyone they want to serve in any position they choose. No dispute there.

However, as a member of the body responsible for approving such a nomination, I personally believe that the approving body has a significantly higher threshold for approving such a nomination. The Mayor or President merely needs to make the nomination; these things occur as rewards, or returned favors, or a strong belief that the nominee will CYA the administration.

Since the appointing entity has such a low threshold, the approving body has a big job.

It has the responsibility to make sure that the person nominated has the requisite skills for the job. This is a non-political responsibility. They should not act as a rubber stamp; they should fully vet the candidate and ensure that their skill set matches the tasks they have been nominated for.

My public position is that no Mayor or President should be allowed to jam an appointee who lacks the skills for the job down our throats; there should never be a quid pro quo that the Pres nominates, therefore it is a done deal.

Perhaps that puts me at odds, but I take advise and consent to mean just that. The approving body has the larger responsibility to country. They just never seem to find the backbone to do the right thing.

Oh yeah. Rest in Peace, John Tower.