;0)
Posted on 09/16/2007 3:25:02 PM PDT by paltz
President Bush has settled on retired federal judge Michael B. Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, two sources familiar with the decision said Sunday.
The appointment of Mukasey, 66, considered a law-and-order conservative and authority on national security issues, could come as early as Monday morning, the sources said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
;0)
foflol!!
(snicker)...;0)
Here's Mark Levin's view on him.>Meeting Mukasey [Mark R. Levin]
I wasn't going to post anything else on Mukasey, but come on guys and gals, there are gapping holes in what we know about him, and his supporters aren't helping matters. Ed Whelen, a good friend who I admire deeply, tells us not to worry about Schumer and Aron's support for him. But his short post over at Benchmemos doesn't provide much to go on. And Andy, also a good friend who I admire deeply, makes a superb case for Mukasey's credentials on national-security and law-enforcement grounds. But the attorney general is involved in a great many matters beyond those areas, including civil rights and judicial selection. I don't minimize the importance of national security and law enforcement, of course, but I don't minimize the importance of his other areas of responsibility, either. And I find no elucidation of his views or record on these matters that his supporters are willing to bring to us. Mukasey comes out of Giuliani's office. He was endorsed by D'Amato and Moynihan for his district court judgeship. But conservatism is about more than national security and law enforcement. It's an overarching philosophy that an attorney general brings to all his decisions. And let's not fool ourselves. There was a candidate who was both a top legal mind and well-established conservative with years of experience at the Justice Department, and his name is Ted Olson. He was passed over for apparently practical and political reasons, including the fact that Schumer and Aron would oppose him (not to mention Reid). So, I am not prepared to delude myself into believing that Mukasey was the best choice. He may be acceptable, but that's different.
I just stole that. I couldn't resist.
I love it. I can’t stop laughing. My eyes are crying.
D@mned straight!
It’s perfect.
totally!
lol....good ole count....always got the wherewithal to make you l.a.u.g.h. : )
Yes indeedy. My first belly laugh of the day.
I’m looking for a short article with Mukasey/Schumer/Aron. I’ll find it.
I have no doubt you will. You are an able researcher! : )
laughs, of one kind or another, are pretty much guaranteed at some point in time with CM.
I suck. I just get lucky and stumble over something. lol brb
“whatever”
: )
Mukasey, Schumer, and Aron [Ed Whelan]
Conservative anxiety about the anticipated nomination of Judge Michael B. Mukasey to be Attorney General derives in part from the fact that Senator Charles Schumer and the Alliance for Justice’s Nan Aron appear to be so high on him. What do they know about him that others don’t? My inquiry has led me to believe that the answer is … nothing.
First, let’s review the facts. In 2003, Senator Schumer sent President Bush a letter in which he identified five Republicans—Senator Specter and four federal judges—whom Schumer thought could win unanimous support as Supreme Court nominees (though Schumer stopped short of promising his own support). Mukasey was one of the four judges. In 2005, Nan Aron listed the same four judges as “consensus nominees.” More recently, both Schumer and Aron expressed their preference for Mukasey over other AG candidates.
Someone who is close to Mukasey and whom I also know and trust assures me that Mukasey and Schumer have had limited contact over the years and that Schumer wouldn’t have any special insights into Mukasey’s understanding of the law. If this is the case (as I believe it to be), why, then, would Schumer put Mukasey on his 2003 list of Supreme Court candidates? The answer, I believe, is that Schumer’s 2003 list was a cynical effort to enhance his own standing to oppose whomever the President nominated to the Court. In other words, Schumer was promoting as Supreme Court candidates five individuals who he knew had no serious prospect of ever being nominated so that he could later paint himself as having been reasonable. And Aron simply cribbed his list.
Schumer’s and Aron’s current preference for Mukasey over other leading candidates is also easy to explain. Schumer and Aron don’t have as much trust that the other candidates will separate law from politics. Although I believe that they are wrong, their judgment is not surprising in light of the fact that some of the other candidates have been more engaged with the world of politics while Judge Mukasey has been on the bench for the past two decades. It’s easy to imagine conservatives making similar distinctions between AG candidates being considered by a Democratic president.
LOL,,,Glad I could give ya’ll a lil’funi,,,;0)
Mukasey on the other hand ain’t funi,,,
He’s got the “Rooty-Stink” all over him,,,
“Some people” don’t know the AG can “go after”,so to speak,
whatever/whoever they wish...(Reno),,,(DUH)...:0/...
Exactly right, on all counts, count (no pun intended, honest : )
Interesting.....so, what does this mean, to you???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.