Smith Votes For Mukasey, Wyden Votes Against
Last night, the US Senate voted to confirm Michael Mukasey as the US Attorney General. The vote was split between Oregon's US Senators, Ron Wyden voted against the nomination, while Gordon Smith voted for it.
From the Oregonian:
In a vote late Thursday night, the Senate confirmed Michael Mukasey to be the U.S. Attorney General.The Senate was split largely along party lines, with 53 senators voting for confirmation and 40 voting against.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., joined most Democrats in voting against Mukasey's confirmation. Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., voted for confirmation. No Republicans voted against the confirmation. Six Democrats and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman voted for the confirmation. And seven senators, mainly presidential candidates, did not vote.
Mukasey attracted criticism from some Democrats because, during his confirmation hearings, he would not immediately declare waterboarding to be torture.
"This is not a new debate, nor an unsettled question," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement after the confirmation. "Judge Mukasey doesn't need a classified briefing from the Bush White House to answer this question."
Read the rest. Gordon Smith's vote begs the question; does he condone waterboarding? Does he consider it to be torture?
Discuss.
|
Nov. 09, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:50 a.m.
Nov 9, '07
I've been down in DC the past week, and I got a chance to talk to Senator Wyden personally for a couple of minutes on Tuesday afternoon.
I took the liberty of thanking him for his attention to the whole Bill of Rights thing on behalf of us Blue Oregonians.
He's one of the very few who are holding the line.......
12:21 p.m.
Nov 9, '07
Why didn't the Democrats attempt to filibuster Mukasey?
Nov 9, '07
Sad, sad, sad. Compromise is always part of politics, but to glibly push aside half a century of global consensus on basic human rights is such a tragedy and a crime. I am deeply disappointed in my countrymen, our leaders, and our fourth Estate.
Nov 9, '07
Why didn't the Democrats attempt to filibuster Mukasey?
At some point, I think pragmatism has to be taken into account. If Mukasey wasn't confirmed, doesn't Bush just put someone worse in the office as a recess appointment?
Nov 9, '07
Pat Ryan, I'd be interested in what Wyden has to say about Harry Reid screwing him on that interior dept hold.
2:15 p.m.
Nov 9, '07
On filibustering: Dems should have stopped it outright or, failing that, they should have filibustered. I'm a pragmatist, too, but there are points where the ostensibly pragmatic turns out to be a quagmire. I wrote this on Hog recently:
While it's important not to go nuclear against the GOP (some adults have to step forward and govern), there are lines over which no Dem should ever step. Authorizing war with a non-threatening Iraq was one example, and Mukasey is another. In both cases, Dems become complicit in immoral and illegal acts. We are still in Iraq, and Bush is still in the White House, because the compromised Dems have not been able to find a unified position in the aftermath of their votes for the war. If Mukasey becomes AG, which is now almost a sure bet, the Democratic party, with majority in the Senate, will own whatever acts he authorizes. In two years time, the party will be saddled with the shame and responsibility of having signed off on this guy.
Yes, it would be catastrophic if Bush put in an AG on recess who conspired with the White House to commit further illegal acts and consolidate further power in the executive branch. But it would be Bush's crimes, and they would be correctable. Instead, this will usher in another chapter of presidential misdeeds for which there will be no accountability.
2:54 p.m.
Nov 9, '07
I think that's a good question.
My take is that if Bush were so inclined he could set it up so he'd be able to make a recess appointment as his desired result, simply by nominating onerous nominees who he knows won't be confirmed.
The onus is on each individual Senator to live up to the oath they took, not to live up to the President's oath which they didn't take.
I see no reason why anyone had to confirm Mukasey or any other nominee who refused to answer the question satisfactorally.
Nov 9, '07
My understanding is that the leadership did not believe that they had the 40 votes to sustain a filibuster regardless of the vote itself. In addition, they are trying to avoid pushing a precedent that will require 60 votes for every presidential appointment since they believe that there will be a Democratic President in a year.
Nov 9, '07
"Gordon Smith's vote begs the question; does he condone waterboarding? Does he consider it to be torture?"
While you're damning Smith over this vote, you might want to ask the same question to the following Democratic Senators who also voted to confirm Mukasey: Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Feinstein (D-CA) Landrieu (D-LA) Nelson (D-NE) Schumer (D-NY)
Then ask why Senators' Obama, Clinton, Dodd & Byden all failed to cast votes on this nomination. Where do they come down on the "waterboarding" talking point?
Nov 9, '07
At some point, I think pragmatism has to be taken into account.
The claim of pragmatism, like sophistication, is often used to rationalize immoral and unethical conduct. The Mukasey vote is a prime example.
6:35 p.m.
Nov 9, '07
backbeat,
No idea. Didn't happen to be on my radar. The work done, (good and bad) on issues other than the Bill of Rights stuff is way down in the second tier for me.
11:02 p.m.
Nov 9, '07
Right on Jeff.
Unfortunately the Trollbot has half a point, largest fraction I've ever seen from it, might have been a whole one but for treating waterboarding as a talking point, no pun apparently intended (guess needles under fingernails would make a stronger pun). Torture's more than a talking point TB, which is why the D votes & abstentions are more than garden variety political maneuvering.
Yechh. What a country. Time to re-read Tacitus on republican charades and death-rattles in early imperial Rome.
11:37 p.m.
Nov 9, '07
I think it's likely that Mukasey himself would have been the recess appointment if the D's had filibustered, and that would have been a preferable outcome. At least that way he would not have had the "bipartisan" imprimatur of confirmation.
Nov 10, '07
Okay, I'll step in it.
If Mukasey becomes AG, which is now almost a sure bet, the Democratic party, with majority in the Senate, will own whatever acts he authorizes.
I think that's overstating it. Opposing parties always have a difficult time with confirmations, because the President is never going to nominate an ideal candidate. If we insist on liberal nominees, we won't confirm anyone, just as the Republicans wouldn't have confirmed any of Clinton's nominees if they held out for conservatives. Confirming a nominee doesn't mean that you're responsible for (or get to take credit for) all of that nominee's future actions.
On Mukasey specifically, I guess I'm of the belief that he's the best we will get out of Bush. Part of my view is based on a friend who knows Mukasey as a judge and says that while conservative, he is smart, ethical, professional, and able to put aside partisanship when it comes to the law. Waterboarding aside, many people (including a number of Democrats) think he will make a good AG.
So let's look at the waterboarding issue. My understanding is that Mukasey's equivocations about whether it is or is not torture result from the fact that we, the US Government, have used waterboarding. Thus, no Bush AG nominee is going to offer up an opinion that says waterboarding is torture, because it would result in criminal charges against the agents who did it and their superiors, possibly up to the president. Now, you and I may think that would be just fine, but a nominee is never going to say that.
So the position that you're taking is this: Dems shouldn't approve any nominee for AG who refuses to testify that the Administration engaged in illegal acts. This is sort of like saying we won't approve any AG who doesn't argue in favor of impeachment. It's an unattainable standard. In which case, your position is that you WANT Bush to make a recess appointment, as Stephanie argues. Which brings me back to my original point about Mukasey being all around a pretty good nominee for AG, at least compared to the other folks Bush could appoint. Given the choice between Mukasey and the unknown, both of whom will say the exact same thing on torture, I'll take Mukasey.
As for how to deal with the torture issue, why not pass a law defining waterboarding as torture and prohibiting its use? Wouldn't it make more sense for Dems to do that and clarify this entire issue, rather than use Mukasey as the proxy?
12:44 a.m.
Nov 10, '07
Thus, no Bush AG nominee is going to offer up an opinion that says waterboarding is torture, because it would result in criminal charges against the agents who did it
But there's just one little problem. We've already prosecuted people for waterboarding.
This whole charade that it's legal somehow is absurd.
Nov 10, '07
Waterboarding = torture = serious human rights violation = national and international illegality = betrayal of basic American values.
<h2>I do not see the wiggle room for equivocation, expediency, or compromise. Shame on Smith, Feinstein, Schumer, and the rest of the Senators voting to confirm. Shame on the entire Bush administration.</h2>