Hang Right Politics

Posted by Kathy on September 17th, 2007 in Justice, BDS, Appeasment, Counterterrorism

What to make of our new AG nominee? Here’s what one democrat said:

“While he is certainly conservative, Judge Mukasey seems to be the kind of nominee who would put rule of law first and show independence from the White House, our most important criteria.

“For sure we’d want to ascertain his approach on such important and sensitive issues as wiretapping and the appointment of US attorneys, but he’s a lot better than some of the other names mentioned and he has the potential to become a consensus nominee. ”

~Senator Chuck Schumer

Redstate calls it ‘craptacular’ and quotes the White House as saying that Mukasey is ‘conservative enough’. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement.

And in an apologetic piece Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard gives his tepid support:

While it’s unfortunate that the first thing many conservatives will hear about Mukasey is that his home-state senator Chuck Schumer has praised him, that shouldn’t disqualify him. Knowing Mukasey wasn’t on Bush’s Supreme Court short list, Schumer felt free to list him a few years ago as an acceptable “consensus” candidate for the Court. And in fact, I for one don’t know enough about Mukasey’s constitutional views to be sure I’d recommend him for a lifetime Court appointment. Nor would he perhaps be the best pick for AG at the beginning of a term, with hundreds of court appointments and other personnel and policy decisions in a wide range of areas ahead. But this is an appointment for the last fifteen months of an administration whose basic policies are set and which has few judges left to appoint.

OK - so Mukasey wouldn’t submit the names of good appointees for judgeships but he will be a good AG? Kristol lost me. And explain to me how this guy will keep in place the programs designed to protect us from terrorists?

Here’s what Kristol says:

Judging also by what Mukasey has written and said outside the courtroom about the Patriot Act and related matters, we can be confident he’ll be effective at making the case before Congress and the public for tough legislation and sound policies on national security issues.

And he’ll be hard to challenge when he does so. Mukasey testifying on behalf of Bush’s FISA legislation will be like Petraeus testifying on the surge. He’ll be an able public spokesman because he can’t be caricatured as a partisan apologist, and the Democrats won’t be able to lay a glove on him.

So my advice is this: conservatives should hold their fire, support the president, enjoy watching Chuck Schumer hoist on his own petard, and get ready for a strong attorney general for the rest of the Bush administration.

We’ll have to hold our fire alright, just to see whose petard is being foisted.

Here’s the AP on Mukasey’s resume dealing with terrorism cases:

WASHINGTON — Retired judge Michael Mukasey is intimately familiar with the nation’s legal battles over terrorism. He played a central role in such cases for over a decade — much of that time getting around-the-clock protection from armed guards.

Mukasey, 66, once worked as a reporter, but gave it up to pursue a career in law. He was nominated to the federal bench in 1987 by President Reagan and eventually became the chief judge of the high-profile Manhattan courthouse.

As such, he played a key role in the nation’s response to the Sept. 11 attacks, which brought down the World Trade Center towers just blocks from Mukasey’s courthouse.

In the days after the attacks, Mukasey and other New York judges worked behind closed doors, seeing some of the first material witnesses detained by federal authorities.

Civil liberties advocates contended the material witness cases amounted to an unconstitutional roundup, and an inspector general’s report later found that many of the witnesses were subjected to physical and verbal abuse while held in a Brooklyn jail.

Mukasey also had a hand in one of the most hard-fought post-Sept. 11 terror cases: that of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was arrested in 2002 on a supposed mission to detonate a “dirty bomb.”

The judge appointed a lawyer to represent Padilla, but before a hearing on whether there was sufficient cause to detain Padilla, President Bush declared him an enemy combatant. That started a legal odyssey that ended with Padilla in a different federal court. He was convicted last month of murder conspiracy, and faces sentencing later this year.

Mukasey wrote an opinion piece recently in which he argued the Padilla case shows the current legal system is not well-equipped to aid a largely military effort to fight terrorists. He urged Congress to consider passing new laws to improve what he said was a mismatched legal system.

….

There was a time when Bush administration officials held a dimmer view of Mukasey’s handling of that case, partly because it took 1-1/2 years to reach trial, a massive undertaking with more than 150 witnesses and 1,500 exhibits. The case ended with 11 convictions.

After the 2001 attacks, the government transferred the most important terror defendant, Zacarias Moussaoui, from New York to Virginia, where they hoped the Virginia court’s “rocket docket” would swiftly deliver the case to jurors more inclined to choose the death penalty.

Mukasey, then the chief judge in New York, had a caustic rejoinder to suggestions his courthouse was too slow to deal with terrorists.

“It’s easy to have a rocket docket when you have horse-and-buggy cases,” Mukasey said.

Like most judges with a long track record, Mukasey has also shot down some high-profile prosecutions.

Just last year, he ordered a mentally ill woman released from jail after she was charged with helping an Iraq spy agency under Saddam Hussein.

Read the rest here.

Here are the personal stats:

Mukasey, Michael B.

Born 1941 in Bronx, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on July 27, 1987, to a seat vacated by Abraham D. Sofaer; Confirmed by the Senate on November 6, 1987, and received commission on November 9, 1987. Served as chief judge, 2000-2006. Assumed senior status on August 1, 2006. Service terminated on September 9, 2006, due to retirement.

Education:
Columbia University, A.B., 1963

Yale Law School, LL.B., 1967

Professional Career:
Private practice, New York City, 1967-1972
Assistant U.S. attorney, Southern District of New York, 1972-1976
Chief, Official Corruption Unit, 1975-1976
Private practice, New York City, 1976-1987

Mukasey isn’t Ted Olson, who I would have preferred, but that’s not a negative for Mukasey. The fact that Schumer likes him should not be a negative, even a clock can be correct twice per day. Kristol, who has a habit of whitewashing GWB’s foibles (even embracing his unpopular stance on immigration) finds Mukasey acceptable.

There is almost no commentary out there on Mukasey at this point, and yet I feel somewhat deflated over the choice. Why is it that every time I see the word consensus used by a liberal I read “surrender”?

Maybe because democrats are incapable of compromise. And in an election year when republicans are feeling less than elated, it feels like rain. Cancel the parade.

Here’s Knighthawk’s opinion of Mukasey at Polipundit.