Comments (58)

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 12:54 PM:

Was Chuck Schumer as upset when John F. Kennedy picked his BROTHER as Attorney General?!

johnnydoughey wrote on August 27, 2007 1:02 PM:

"pick the best person, not his best friend."

Unbeknownst to Schumer, Bush does not actually have friends. He has aiders and abetters. He has minorities he can condescend to and make them feel important enough to do his every wish. He has people he can threaten. He has attorneys who were raised to never question their god... and became their God. He has greedy people who will send others to their death to make a dollar. the closest thing Bush has to a friend is Dick Cheney, and he SHOOTS his friends...

chisholm wrote on August 27, 2007 1:03 PM:

Bush is in no hurry. Keeping Clement (as big a hack as Gonzalez) as acting AG is fine. I doubt there's going to be a rush to nominate anyone.

LittleSuspicious wrote on August 27, 2007 1:14 PM:

I know nothing of Clement, but given Bush's track record of recommendations, he must be a real work of art.

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 1:15 PM:

"He has minorities he can condescend to and make them feel important enough to do his every wish"

Many people believe Bush treats Gonzales and rice as equals and friends, but remember one thing... Bush has never actually paid these people. they have done his bidding without question for many years now, but although the nation has chosen to free slaves and pay them for job performance, Bush has never given them a dime. We pay thes guys, not him, yet they are still acting on behalf of their slaveowner... not us.

Rusty Austin wrote on August 27, 2007 1:19 PM:

Was Patrick Henry as upset when John Adams picked his SON as Attorney General?!?! Was Torquemada rival Quintemada as upset when King Carlos picked Torqumeada to run the inquisition?!?!?

Seriously, if that's the best you got, go home and hide under the bed until you understand the time space continuum.

Passing Shot wrote on August 27, 2007 1:22 PM:

On Mr. Clement's "moral fitness" -- from a Legal Affairs article: http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=898

"During Clement's third year at Harvard Law School in 1991-1992, he was involved in the biggest scandal in the nearly 120-year history of the Harvard Law Review. Clement was Supreme Court editor that year when the Revue, the law review's annual parody issue, which is published out of the same offices, mocked a law review article by Mary Jo Frug, a feminist legal scholar and the wife of Harvard Law professor Gerald Frug. She had been murdered one year before by a knife-wielding assailant, and the law review had published an unedited and unfinished draft of her "A Postmodern Feminist Manifesto" as a tribute. The tone of the Revue parody of Frug's article, as well as its distribution on the exact anniversary of Frug's murder, outraged campus liberals, including Harvard's best-known professor of constitutional law, Laurence Tribe, who hyperbolically compared the law review editors to Holocaust deniers for suggesting "that the hatred of women is a hoax perpetuated by paranoid feminists." Tribe added, "The law review might well have danced on Mary Jo's grave for what they did."

Although Clement was not one of the two students who admitted to writing the parody, he was one of eight law review editors who signed a letter of apology for publishing it, for being "involved to varying degrees with the production of the Revue," and for not taking "greater steps to prevent the publication of the offending material."

dogjudge wrote on August 27, 2007 1:23 PM:

Schumer and America should hope that Bush even goes through Congress.

Another recess appointment coming?

sd wrote on August 27, 2007 1:26 PM:

"Was Chuck Schumer as upset when John F. Kennedy picked his BROTHER as Attorney General?!
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: August 27, 2007 12:54 PM"

wow jake - i don't know. surprisingly relevant today, however. you think he was happy about chase's appointment to lincoln's cabinet?

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 1:26 PM:

Said it elsewhere, as well, but my prediction is that he lets Clement sit for as long as possible (over 200 days), make a big show of how uncooperative the Dems are with his appointments, then make a recess appointment next time around.

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 1:27 PM:

Said it elsewhere, as well, but my prediction is that he lets Clement sit for as long as possible (over 200 days), make a big show of how uncooperative the Dems are with his appointments, then make a recess appointment next time around.

lambert strether wrote on August 27, 2007 1:28 PM:

Clement clerked for Scalia. So, good to know that the next time Bush needs a Bush v. Gore style ruling, he's got the judges and the litigator both wired….

NOTE Ed, Jake D, Chuck Schumer was 10 years old in 1960.

To slightly alter Welch's famous words: "Until this moment, I think I had never gauged your stupidity or your fecklessness. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"

CODE WORD: smell, and rightly so.

Rickey wrote on August 27, 2007 1:31 PM:

Jake D. might be interested to know that Chuck Schumer was all of ten years old when JFK picked RFK to be Attorney General, so I doubt that Chuck had an opinion about it one way or the other.

And of course there is the little matter that Bobby Kennedy demonstrated actual competence as Attorney General.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 1:31 PM:

Since Schumer was not alive when Lincoln, John Adams, or King Carlos were, I would agree that's not relevant. Whether Schumer is a hypocrite, however, IS relevant.

Dave from the Lake Effect Zone wrote on August 27, 2007 1:35 PM:

Was Chuck Schumer as upset when John F. Kennedy picked his BROTHER as Attorney General?!
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: August 27, 2007 12:54 PM
-----------------------
Gee, I don't know. He probably felt about as much as I did, seeing he was in the fifth grade at the time.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 1:46 PM:

This may come as a shock to some of you, but I had political opinions when I was 10 : )

CN wrote on August 27, 2007 1:47 PM:

Bush doesn't need to pick a "friend." After decades of the Federalist Society grooming young right-wing lawyers and six years of the Bush administration putting them in positions of power and experience, there are plenty of ideological whackos who have the technical qualifications for the job but no direct connection to Bush.

For example, Roberts and Alito didn't have any personal connection or loyalty to Bush, but they have both proven to be in perfect lock-step with the administration, with no direction required.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of "professional, non-partisan" people out there with the mindset of John Yoo and Bill Kristol. Bush will choose one of them -- and the Democrats will probably be bamboozled, just like with Roberts and Alito.

mo2 wrote on August 27, 2007 1:50 PM:

There are very few people who want to defend renditons, torture and domestic surveillence without warrants. Plus anyone who has been involved in those activities up until now would face excrutiating confirmation hearings.

Slim Pickins wrote on August 27, 2007 1:54 PM:

"This may come as a shock to some of you, but I had political opinions when I was 10 : )"

Maybe that is why your opinions are so moronic?

psyberdawg wrote on August 27, 2007 1:55 PM:

This may come as a shock to some of you, but I had political opinions when I was 10 : )

Posted by: Jake D.

And I bet they haven't changed a bit.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 1:57 PM:

I don't care how old Senator Schumer was at the time. See if you can spot the CURRENT hypocrisy:

January 26, 2005: "We all know that there have been Attorneys General over the years who have been close to the President - there's no better example than Robert F. Kennedy who served his own brother."

August 27, 2007: The White House needs to pick a "professional, not a partisan, and not a pal." And President Bush needs to "pick the best person, not his best friend."

C-92 wrote on August 27, 2007 1:59 PM:

My bets are on Sen. John Cornyn.

He was AG in Texas. Before that on the State Supreme Court.

And he is so incredibly close the the Administration, he could be counted on keeping its secrets. Yet he's utterly confirmable since he hasn't been part of the Administration - and his Senate colleagues cound n'er speak ill of him.

My bet is Cornyn. With a quick confirmation.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 2:02 PM:

P.S. I am pretty sure every other 10-year old American kid on December 7, 1941 had a "political opinion" too ; )

profmarcus wrote on August 27, 2007 2:13 PM:

patrick fitzgerald...

just sayin'...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

fuzz wrote on August 27, 2007 2:22 PM:

That's not hypocrisy, Jake, that's Schumer assuming his audience is intelligent and able to parse "pick the best person, not his best friend" means Bush should pick someone based on their suitability to the job rather than their loyalty to him.

Besides which, if Kennedy had previously appointed a torture-loving perjurer to office that had undermined the nation's confidence in the Department of Justice, there most certainly would have been an uproar if he'd then attempted to replace that person with his brother.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 2:22 PM:

P.P.S. What does "throw down the gaunt" mean?

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 2:25 PM:

Not by the Democrats, fuzz. You see, ergo, the hypocrisy?

TomJ wrote on August 27, 2007 2:28 PM:

No, Jake, I didn't have political opinions when I was ten. I was actually doing something important like catching frogs. I believe it's called having a life.

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 2:28 PM:

Please stop feeding the troll. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 2:32 PM:

Jake has all the time in the world to write this crap as he sits at home, collecting his Social Security check.

Jake, if you really believed in personal responsibility, you would not be collecting Social Security.

Please let us know when your actions match up with your talk.

Legalize wrote on August 27, 2007 2:34 PM:

"This may come as a shock to some of you, but I had political opinions when I was 10 : )"

We're not interested in your political opinions from 2 years ago. But back to the non-bizzaro world, RFK was qualified, and showed as much. He also served in the military, which makes me wonder about your hypocricy in not criticizing Abu Al Gonzales and the rest of the GOPers (including yourself). Why do you hate military veterans?

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 2:38 PM:

You were definitely born in a different age, TomJ -- lucky you. Back to the topic:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20460045/

Will Democrats impose consensus attorney general nominee on Bush?

WASHINGTON - Dramatic enough in itself, the announcement Monday morning that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had resigned also set the stage for what may be one of most contentious confirmation hearings since the Senate rejected John Tower as defense secretary in 1989.

Tower’s defeat at the hands of a Democratic-controlled Senate was the last time any president has had a Cabinet nominee voted down, an event that has happened only 12 times since the republic began.

Will the Senate, which the Democrats control by a one-seat margin, be able to impose a consensus nominee on President Bush, someone in the mold of Sen. William Saxbe, R-Ohio, whom Richard Nixon was virtually forced to appoint in the depths of the Watergate crisis?

. . . Chertoff? Maybe not, says Schumer
The New York Democrat threw cold water on the notion that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal prosecutor and federal judge, might succeed Gonzales. "I talked to (Judiciary Committee chairman) Sen. (Patrick) Leahy about this this morning and many of us have some doubts about Michael Chertoff," said Schumer.

On Monday, Schumer was unwilling to offer names as his favored replacement for Gonzales.

"I'm not going to get into names today. I will be quietly suggesting some names to people in the White House.... You don't want to create a division, you don't want a Democratic name out there at this point," he said.

But back in April, Schumer offered his own short list of nominees to replace Gonzales:

Larry Thompson, former number two man of the Justice Department in President Bush’s first term. Thompson, now general counsel of Pepsico, is an old friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and appeared as a witness for Thomas during his Senate confirmation hearings.

James Comey, who served as deputy in the Justice Department after Thompson left.

Retired federal trial judge Michael Mukasey

. . . Just last week, Mukasey wrote a lengthy op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal in which he urged Congress to consider the creation of special national security courts to deal with accused terrorists such as Jose Padilla.

“The person appointed should have past Justice Department experience and have standing in the legal community as a scholar or practitioner of note," said Doug Kmiec, a top Justice Department official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

The nominee should "be willing to serve as a transitional figure capable of bridging the gap between the extraordinary career talent, the remaining presidential appointees, and the on-going work of the Department, especially as it relates to the war on terror and the work of the U.S. Attorneys as it pertains to civil rights,” Kmiec added.

“The best model would be someone of the quality of an Edward Levi or Griffin Bell or William French Smith,” said Kmiec, who now teaches at Pepperdine Law School in California.

Hector wrote on August 27, 2007 2:39 PM:

I'm as opposed to the conduct of Gonzales, Yoo, Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice and others in and about the Bush administration as anyone acting on this side of the criminal code, and I have become increasingly convinced that Robert Kennedy's death cost this country dearly. But on the matter of whether Schumer, by declaring that Bush should not pick his best friend, at not at least fairly open to Jake D.'s question -- regardless of anyone's age at any time in history -- I think Jake D. has the better of the exchange.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 2:41 PM:

Thank you, Hector.

gaspare wrote on August 27, 2007 2:41 PM:

A recess appt. would not just end thier 'gentlemen's agreement' but any kind of commity that still exists between the Senate and WH. I mean Bush might as well walk up to Reid and kick him in the nuts on Live TV. Such a move by Bush would mobilize the entire netroots, galavanize the entire progressive community and further amplify the coming September showdown. Now, maybe, this is the plan. Bush thinks amplify the showdown with congress will provoke them to retaliate in anger and bluster, it's possible. We are all quite convinced that Bush plans to veto just about everything next month. So where will that leave things? The government unable to pay federal employees after the statutory limits are reached and a Congress less popular than ever because it refuses to give the President what he wants. I don't know, but if Bush does do some type of recess appt. we'll know where Bush's thinking is headed for the rest of the fall. But with the resignation not effect until 9/17, it doesn't seem likely. If anything, TPM must be thinking Bush will still do a recess, just not during this August period. So a Senator's probably going to have to come in on Thanksgiving or Christmas and New Year and that'll probably go over like a lead balloon. But for Bush to do a recess appointment on Christmas day will probably delight him to no end.

Hector wrote on August 27, 2007 2:43 PM:

I'm as opposed to the conduct of Gonzales, Yoo, Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, Chertoff and others in and about the Bush administration as any law-abiding person, and I have become increasingly convinced that Robert Kennedy's death cost this country dearly. But on the matter of whether Schumer, by declaring that Bush should not pick his best friend, is not at least fairly open to Jake D.'s question -- regardless of anyone's age at any time in history -- I think Jake D. has the better of the exchange. Had Schumer not permitted his love for the sound of his own rhetoric to get the better of him -- had he been content simply to have called for the appointment of a person who would respect the rule of law -- he'd have been better off.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 2:47 PM:

For the record, I am registered Independent (NOT Republican) and do not hate military veterans (as I am one myself -- serving in the Army during the Korean War). Hopefully, we can stay on the topic of Chuck Schumer's hypocrisy now.

Dee Illuminati wrote on August 27, 2007 2:47 PM:

well Bernard Kerik is available.. LOL

Fitzgerald would be ok, Glenn Fine ???

Clement has a wiki entry ASAP and real time...

Clement was named as acting Attorney General of the United States upon the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, effective September 17, 2007. [1] As the number-four official in the United States Department of Justice, Clement will serve as acting AG due to the lack of permanent occupants in the offices of the United States Deputy Attorney General and the United States Associate Attorney General.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Clement

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 2:50 PM:

Thanks again, Hector : )

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 2:57 PM:

I'm not reading the trollery. I'm more upset about Schumer here acting like these guys are merely recalcitrant and disinclined to play with others. He either doesn't get it or thinks the play-acting is necessary to capture the hearts of his imaginary moderate friends Joe and Eileen.

V. Populi wrote on August 27, 2007 2:58 PM:

i can't seem to recall a resignation that was more satisfying to hear.

oh wait, karl rove's. i must have a faulty memory or something. maybe i could be the next AG.

moondancer wrote on August 27, 2007 3:10 PM:

Its interesting the "models" Jake the troll mentions above. I would be unimpressed with any nominee that was described as in the style of WF Smith or Bell. They may have nice waspy names, but they were GOP hacks first, attys second.
Must be a trait of repug attys, contempt for rule of law unless it suits your needs.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 3:22 PM:

More top Administration officials had resigned during Clinton's second term. Not sure what you guys are crowing about really.

V. Populi wrote on August 27, 2007 3:25 PM:

Jake, I think we can all agree that it's less repugnant to nominate your friend (or brother) to AG if that person will respect the rule of law above the pre-existing relationship. Historians judge RFK quite kindly in his capacity as AG. Will the same be said of Abu Gonzo? The answer will be no, and the likely reason will be because he transposed the two priorities I just mentioned.

Whether Schumer is a hypocrite, by the quotes you've pulled above, is dependent upon his opinion of the appointment of RFK by JFK - but unless you find a statement by Schumer specifying RFK as a good appointment in spite of his relationship to JFK, your argument is dead in the water. For all we know, Schumer may very well think it WAS improper for JFK to pick his brother. Democrats don't blindly support all decisions made by other Democrats. So don't call Schumer a hypocrite till you come back with a quote from him singing the praises of the RFK appointment to AG.

poggy wrote on August 27, 2007 3:26 PM:

Congress shouldn't approve anybody or anything until the WH complies with the law and the subpoenas that it is ignoring.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 3:26 PM:

For the record, I did not mention any "models" above -- Professor Kmiec did (I guess he's a "troll" too) -- I wanted Gonzales to stay in office.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 3:35 PM:

LOL, V. Populi, I am sure that Schumer thinks it was improper for JFK to pick his brother -- he just has never said so -- good one!

V. Populi wrote on August 27, 2007 3:35 PM:

Schumer's comments are also made in the context of a DoJ in shambles and devoid of credibility - which makes it incumbent upon the administration to raise the bar for its next appointment to AG. This is no ordinary time to be seeking the office of Attorney General. What was possible for J & RFK was acceptable because they weren't beset by scandal; the Kennedy administration was more trustworthy at the time, unlike the Bush administration currently. Schumer's comments are appropriate in the present context - they don't necessarily have to be enforced at the nomination of every AG. Not that it wouldn't be a bad idea...

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 3:39 PM:

That's right -- there was no Kennedy "scandal" because the liberal press kept Marilyn Monroe's connection out of the newspapers -- too bad Teddy couldn't cover-up Chappaquiddick as well ; )

sniflheim wrote on August 27, 2007 3:51 PM:

See this thread could've been about the lameness of Schumer's rhetoric and the need to get him to snap out of it and be real about this. Instead it's about the Kennedys. You're giving in to trollism.

PJ White wrote on August 27, 2007 3:52 PM:

Re: Jake D. Why do you guys play with Jake? He is a TROLL! He is baiting you by saying stupid things. Why do you bite? Ignore him. He is insignificant. His purpose here is to take over the debate. Sheesh! Give it up.

noen wrote on August 27, 2007 4:12 PM:

Please don't feed the troll, see what happens when you do?

"We’re not looking for confrontation here. Ideally the WH will come to us, work with us, and there will be no confrontation...."

It would be easy to jump on this and ask what planet Schumer is living on. What he is really doing is setting the frame for when the WH stonewalls the Senate. They will be able to come back and complain that Bush isn't cooperating. I suppose that's ok but I think the Dems are still living in the past. They need to get aggressively out front and BE confrontational. It's all Bush and the GOP understand.

Schumer would have Bush over for tea and crumpets and talk ever so politely about the torture and the spying and the war. It is a failed straegy.

OCPatriot wrote on August 27, 2007 4:53 PM:

The idiots never learn. They implore (substitute "beg" or "plead with"). I have never seen a bunch of politicians who have so little backbone they don't know how to stand up straight. They think they've won a battle here; little do they know George Bush, who is laughing up his sleeve. Just wait...

Duckman GR wrote on August 27, 2007 5:53 PM:

Put pressure on Feinstein, no Chertoff!

Even though CNN was singing his praises this morning, Roberts, Malveaux et al, just because he was approved for HSD does not make him fit for AG.

Given his oversight during Katrina he is not fit for HSD, let alone AG.

The Dems need to tell Bush that he needs to nominate somebody from their short list, not from Bush's

Cornyn would be a smart political choice for Bush, but that would create a bigger election battle for that seat than if Cornyn were running for re-election.

noen wrote on August 27, 2007 6:33 PM:

Here is how I think it will play out. All the WH needs to do is to bide for time so they are going to put up someone like Chertof who the Dems will not accept. Then they just grind everything down to a halt. Bush will not allow anyone as AG who doesn't "play ball".

Remember how Bush played the FISA legislation? That's how he'll play this, exactly the same. Why not? It works doesn't it? I bet the Dems will even roll over eventually. They talk tough at first but they always capitulate in the end.

The Dem leadership needs to get off it's collective ass and start impeachment hearings on Gonzo, he can still be impeached (I'm pretty sure that's right, not totally though) and he can still be charged with perjury and other crimes. We also need to make sure there is no recess appointment. Bush can't be trusted at all and any Dem that doesn't know this by now is a fool.

Oscar wrote on August 27, 2007 6:40 PM:

"pick the best person, not his best friend."

Damn it, Bush was gonna appoint Karl Rove...

Jane wrote on August 27, 2007 9:56 PM:

If the nominee likes Bush and Bush likes the nominee on the basis of the available evidence the nominee is unfit for public office.

The Constitution gives the Senate the duty of advising and consenting. They have more than fulfilled the latter function. It is time that meet their duty to advise Bush and give him three names and advise that he choose among them if he wants their consent.

There is absolutely no need to enable the DOJ to be reorganized to disable the Constitution again.

illlich wrote on August 28, 2007 2:21 PM:

I think Schumer's statement is a nice inoculation against charges of DEM partisanship during upcoming affirmation hearings. Sure seems like a reasonable request. Unfortunately the loudmouths on the right will ignore it and claim DEM partisanship unless they (the DEMs) simply approve the nominee without debate. Just look at how Hannity harps on about Obama "accusing the troops of killing civilians" -- (PLEASE, civilians get killed all the time in battle, is he denying it?)-- he just looks for any comment that can be turned into ammo for his side, reason be damned. Good posts of Hannity video at newshounds (part of the Ted Nugent fiasco).