Here It Is: A Handy Chart To Follow Senators' Positions On Mukasey

Comments (49)

former republican, orange county CA wrote on October 31, 2007 5:36 PM:

So Larry Craig got railroaded into a "false confession" by a security guard at an airport through the coercion of being allowed to go home and think about it for a few weks but he doesn't have any issue with torture? what a putz

daniel155 wrote on October 31, 2007 5:36 PM:

It would probably be more helpful to see the makeup of the Judiciary Committee becuase if Mukasey loses in the committee it will give more moderate Democrats more cover to oppose him.

Sen Charles Schumer (D-NY) knows Mukasey personally and lavishly praised him earlier in the process so it would look bad if he opposed him although he could use his answers on torture as a reason. Not beyond the realm of possibility

My guess is that from the author's list that, at the least, Baucus, Byrd, Casey Jr, Graham, Gregg, Johnson, Landrieu, Lieberman, McCain, Nelson-NB, Pryor, and Schumer will vote for him. Note that a lot of these senators I list are running in 2008.

This gives him 57 votes. It would take a filibuster to stop him and I don't know if Harry Reid feels up to doing that. He has been having a rough go of it lately.

daniel155 wrote on October 31, 2007 5:39 PM:

I forgot Arlen Specter. That makes 58

totallynext wrote on October 31, 2007 5:40 PM:

Has anyone thought that maybe this was their strategy? Isn't the acting AG some really bad RW hack. Maybe they are tyring to string this thing along and keep the acting guy in.

workaday joe wrote on October 31, 2007 5:49 PM:

totallynext says "maybe this was their strategy"

I can't think of any other rational explanation. Why the Dems weren't better prepared for this is beyond me. After seven years of completely flouting the spirit and in many cases the letter of the law, did the Dems really think Bush was going to make nice this time?

along wrote on October 31, 2007 5:58 PM:

yeah, I don't think this tally is relevant right now. it's going to come down to Feinstein and Schumer in the Judiciary Committee. If they decide to give each other cover and vote to report out Mukasey's nomination for a full vote, he'll be confirmed with something like 58 ayes, as daniel155 says.

If either one decides against Mukasey, the other will probably not be able to withstand the peer pressure.

In that case, the nomination doesn't get out of Judiciary, and I see no way Reid can schedule a vote on it.

One other possibility is that the Judiciary Committee reports it out with no recommendation. That's what happened with Bolton in the Foreign Relations Committee. In that case Mukasey wins.

mike wrote on October 31, 2007 5:59 PM:

I think Feingold will vote for him, not because he loves waterboarding, but because he firmly believes in the principle that presidents should have broad discretion in selecting their cabinet.

Feingold was key to the Ashcroft confirmation.

I don't like Mukasey, but he's not an administration stooge and he sounds like a principled guy who tells the truth. This is a huge improvement and distinction over Gonzales.

Rusty Austin wrote on October 31, 2007 6:06 PM:

Why bother fighting over this guy. It's a sideshow, report him out and let him get confirmed who cares. Nothing he can do will make any difference, and leaving the guy who is in there, in there, is worse. It's the lesser of two evils, and when you reject the lesser, you are stuck with the greater.

along wrote on October 31, 2007 6:14 PM:

Oh wow, I didn't think about that re: Feingold. It's a good point.

But I think he'll vote against it for another reason, the same one Dodd has articulated--Mukasey's counsel against adherence to the rule of law in some circumstances:

"Mr. Mukasey's position that the President does not have to heed the law disqualifies him from being the chief attorney for the United States. We have seen for too long, and at great expense to our national security, an Administration that has systematically attacked the rule of law and turned our Justice Department into a political wing of the White House. I'm afraid that Mr. Mukasey as Attorney General would be more of the same."
http://chrisdodd.com/blog/dodd-announces-opposition-mukasey-nomination

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 6:45 PM:

I'm surprised on Whitehouse -- I accordingly revise my projected total number of Senators voting to confirm Mukasey at 63 -- Kohl and Schumer will vote for him.

Lev Raphael wrote on October 31, 2007 7:05 PM:

Battle? What battle? He needs just four more votes. It's already over.

anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 7:07 PM:

I think it is pretty clear that Mukasey is refusing to answer the waterboarding question because if he answers that it is torture and the president cannot, even under his constitutional executive powers order torture, then Mukasey would face the prospect of either prosecuting the president and former secretary of defense who authorized torture during past CIA interrogations, or at the very least the CIA officers who directly ordered or performed waterboarding, setting up a credible impeachment charge against the president and former secretary, or refusing to legally act in accordance with his assertion that waterboarding is torture.

No AG nominee can answer that question without putting numerous persons in or serving the administration in legal jeopardy, so no nominee will.

The Dems are going to have to bite the bullet and confirm this lesser evil or allow the acting AG to continue in his post until the end of the administration, something that I believe would violate the appointments clause.

Of course, we all know that waterboarding is torture (hell, as a government we've even officially stated so previously), and we all know that Bush and Rumsfeld ordered this technique be used and the technique was implemented in at least one case, and we all know that no CIA official is at risk of future conduct (assuming that the source is correct that the CIA no longer uses this technique and that it is no longer authorized), and we all know that merely threatening to use waterboarding is itself torture, so we all know that Mukasey's stated excuses for refusing to state whether waterboarding is torture are bogus.

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 7:11 PM:

We ALL know "merely threatening to use waterboarding is itself torture"?!

v. popvli wrote on October 31, 2007 7:12 PM:

Lev Raphael, it's not necessarily over just yet. the republican wing of congress has been placed in the "support" group by default since none have publicly questioned his confirmation (except for specter and gregg). i'm hoping that they're not all so short-sighted that they don't see that the next president who claims to be "above the law" as commander-in-chief may be a democrat. approving mukasey is what the republican party wants in the short run, but do they really want the loaded pistol of unitary executive powers to lie around for the next democratic president to pick up at any time in the future?

anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 7:14 PM:

That's not to say that he should be confirmed by a vote of anything more than 51-49.

A couple of Dems may have to sacrifice principle, but it is the best choice of a bad lot of utterly corrupt Republicans and actually finding a Republican with both a spine and integrity would be like finding Brittany Spears in the good mother award nominees.

anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 7:16 PM:

Jake D as always plays his dimwit role well.

anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 7:18 PM:

Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Al wrote on October 31, 2007 7:37 PM:

It is simply unbelievable that the government's discourse on torture has degenerated to the grayscales, ONCE AGAIN. History has already shown us how an ambiguous stance on torture in US foreign policy can have disastrous consequences: the infamous decades of the 70's and 80's in Latin America.
Through declassified counterinsurgency manuals of the time, we now know the extent to which a carefully-worded US endorsement of torture was prevalent in training of Latin American officers at the School of the Americas. One can hardly downplay the connection between this tacit admission of torture (as a legitimate means to an end), and the generation of rampant repression, forced disappearances and genocides that ensued.

See:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB27/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20041212/ai_n12592840

bob wrote on October 31, 2007 7:44 PM:

workaday joe, the Dems can't do anything about Bush interim appointments. They also can't do anything about recess appointments. That's what he'll do if Mukasey gets spiked.

Oh, well, I say. Better than confirming someone unwilling to call waterboarding torture.

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 7:45 PM:

How about Judiciary Committee members in BOLD?

kentuck wrote on October 31, 2007 7:50 PM:

The inability to define torture is the less of his liabilities. His opinion that the President has the right to disobey some laws is more worrisome. He believes in the unitary executive, it appears?

Perhaps someone should ask him if he thinks Richard Nixon should have stayed on and fought as a "unitary executive"? After all, he believed that the laws did not apply to him either.

CalD wrote on October 31, 2007 9:23 PM:

Seems like Arlen Specter is always undecided... right up until the moment he finally goes and curls up at Bush's feet and starts licking his boots.

tom hairless wrote on October 31, 2007 10:24 PM:

I wrote Feinstein (judiciary committee member) urging a no vote. Wednesday afternoon I got these statements from Feinstein: "I voted in favor of sending
his nomination to the full Senate. I decided he has the qualifications that I mention to be ajudge".
That seems to mean that she will vote to confirm.

enough wrote on October 31, 2007 10:33 PM:

Both Feingold and Feinstein voted against Alberto Gonzales' confirmation.

We don't need another confirmation regardless of the interim appointment.

Schumer has come out publicly stating he will vote against Mukasey.

westcoaster wrote on October 31, 2007 10:57 PM:

"i'm hoping that they're not all so short-sighted that they don't see that the next president who claims to be "above the law" as commander-in-chief may be a democrat. approving mukasey is what the republican party wants in the short run, but do they really want the loaded pistol of unitary executive powers to lie around for the next democratic president to pick up at any time in the future?"

Mitch McConnell and his cronies are very short-sighted, all they see is their immediate Republican political advantage. Remember they almost abolished the filibuster when they controlled the Senate because they just couldn't fathom that they'd ever lose control of the Senate.

McConnell and Co are not big thinkers. They only look far enough ahead to the next election.

bianco wrote on October 31, 2007 11:36 PM:

hard to believe a standup guy like feingold wont vote no to a weasle wordsmith after seven years of shameless chicanery.

along wrote on October 31, 2007 11:59 PM:

re schumer's position:

as far as I can determine, Schumer has not come out against Mukasey. This piece in The Hill from late Wed. night, which details his statements and predicament, says only that he has so far refused to comment:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-in-tough-spot-as-dem-opposition-to-mukasey-grows-2007-11-01.html

radiofreewill wrote on November 1, 2007 12:40 AM:

CNN reporting that a Senior Dem on the SJC is saying Mukasey will be confirmed by the SJC next week, and then by the full Senate. No word on which Dem was quoted.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/31/senate.mukasey/index.html

nrglaw wrote on November 1, 2007 1:50 AM:

I'm not at all sure about either Schumer or Feingold. Schumer is all about building Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. You don't do that by voting in the opposite direction from three dem presidential candidates on the SJC. Feingold votes no. This is just not his kind of guy--best or worst outcome be damned.

I don't see this guy getting out of committee.

As for the Rs, all I can say is that Spineless Specter votes aye!

anon wrote on November 1, 2007 5:57 AM:

I don't understand the question. Based on past record and the current numbers Mukasey's heading out of comittee and into an assured confirmation. (What am I missing? The votes aren't there in committee to stop it are they? And, please, don't count on Specter. Seems to me that Clinton, Obama, etc. waited untill they knew Mukasey was going to make it out of committee before annoucing their votes. Their votes indicate he's confirmed more than they will hold it up and take heat for it.)

Not that it should be so but I just don't see where the votes will come from.

Anon wrote on November 1, 2007 6:18 AM:

Re Schumer:

Mukasey may be a fine person, but he has been persuaded, clearly, to set aside his integrity. One can only guess if it was carrot, stick, or some of both, but already - they have figured out how to manipulate him to coerce him into lying to Congress.

Since his former association with Schumer, Mukasey has decided to sell his soul to the devil.

.

GTFOOH wrote on November 1, 2007 7:24 AM:

I THINK IN ORDER TO BE ATTNY GENERAL YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PLEDGE FOR THE POSITION.

SAY, BARE BUTTED PADDLE SWATING, BY EVERY MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, FOLLOWED BY A HEFTY ROUND OF WATER BOARDING.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 1, 2007 9:06 AM:

63! Jake! You can count? I mean beyond the ten to twenty numbers regularly appearing on Sesame Street . . . I'm speechless.

I'm guessing you are in the ballpark on this one, BUT please do not hold it against me if I spend the next couple of days lobbying against our future torture czar and jack-boot appoligist .

RonK, Seattle wrote on November 1, 2007 11:41 AM:

Excellent form! Hope this will be a recurring feature on key votes.

Jake D. wrote on November 1, 2007 11:59 AM:

Richard:

I won't hold ANYTHING against you -- I won't even resort to ad hominem attacks -- it is, of course, your right to lobby against a fair "up or down" vote re: Mukasey on the Senate floor (also, Issa's district is in San Diego, not Orange County : )

Patrick wrote on November 1, 2007 12:39 PM:

Someone wanted to see Judiciary Committee members -- here ya go:

Patrick J. Leahy, CHAIRMAN (D-VT)
Arlen Specter, RANKING MEMBER (R-PA)
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Russell D. Feingold (D-WI)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)

I don't know how the Committee members are likely to vote, but I'd say Feinstein and Schumer are key -- which is a bad, bad thing. When push has come to shove, both have demonstrated themselves to be "enablers" for the Bush administration, and Mukasey's NY/Schumer connection probably makes it even easier for Schumer to enable in this event. Another Dem I don't trust as far as I can throw is Herb Kohl.

OTOH, I'm not entirely sure that we should count all the GOPers as voting for Mukasey either -- Grassley just might vote nay (no objective basis, just the fact that he's always seemed more moderate/rational in his positions -- and he comes from Iowa which has generally been pretty reliably blue for years).

Charles M wrote on November 1, 2007 1:29 PM:

Kay Bailey Hutchinson, not Kay Hutchinson Bailey

Dave from the Lake Effect Zone wrote on November 1, 2007 1:54 PM:

mike wrote on October 31, 2007 5:59 PM:

I think Feingold will vote for him, not because he loves waterboarding, but because he firmly believes in the principle that presidents should have broad discretion in selecting their cabinet.
----------------------------------
The office of Attorney General should not be considered equal to that of the Secretary of Labor. It ought to be considered more similar to that of Chairman of the Federal Reserve in terms of presumed independence of the rest of the executive branch. If I were a Congressman, I'd introduce a bill that makes it official. Five year tenure, subject to renewal, just like the Fed Chairman.

Vulture Breath wrote on November 1, 2007 1:55 PM:

Actually it's Kay Bailey Hutchison (only one N).

Michael Ditto wrote on November 1, 2007 2:43 PM:

Ken Salazar says no if Mukasey doesn't say waterboarding is illegal.

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1193902231/2

Joe Blow wrote on November 1, 2007 2:45 PM:

If Larry Craig can deny being gay while being waterboarded, I would believe him... maybe.

de Rougemont wrote on November 1, 2007 2:51 PM:

Mukasey is in an untenable situation: If he says waterboarding is illegal, and gets the appointment (although Bush would probably fire him the next day) he has to essentially bring charges against those who have used 'the technique'. If he doesn't say waterboarding is illegal, and gets appointed, he will be subject to the same charges as are being talked about (see the Times lead today). If not immediately, then when the next administration comes in and changes 'memoes'. (And since when has the US of A been under rule of - not laws, but memoes?)

neophyte wrote on November 1, 2007 3:10 PM:

Why can't the congress just write up a simple bill that waterboarding has been torture, is torture and will be torture - and the A-G, the Prez, VP and all must just follow the law.

Steven Emery wrote on November 1, 2007 3:27 PM:

I'm pretty sure we can count on Lautenberg and Menendez to vote against confirmation. I just spoke with staffers in both their offices who told me that's the case, although neither NJ Senator has said so officially or publicly.

tintinabulation wrote on November 1, 2007 3:44 PM:

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1193902231/2

Salazar pretty much says no here.

X wrote on November 1, 2007 4:58 PM:

Feingold needs to come out strongly against this guy. I can't come up with a single good reason for him not to do so.

Neutral Observer wrote on November 1, 2007 7:06 PM:

You didn't think any of what "mike" wrote above on October 31, 2007 5:59 PM was a "good" reason:

"I think Feingold will vote for him, not because he loves waterboarding, but because he firmly believes in the principle that presidents should have broad discretion in selecting their cabinet.

Feingold was key to the Ashcroft confirmation.

I don't like Mukasey, but he's not an administration stooge and he sounds like a principled guy who tells the truth. This is a huge improvement and distinction over Gonzales."

Venire wrote on November 3, 2007 10:26 PM:

If Feinstein & Schumer vote for Mukasey, I'll personally donate the max to each of their Democratic rivals -- like I
intend to for Cindy Shenan who's running against Pelosi. These HACKS have got to go--& Harry Reid can join them. "Can't describe water boarding," etc. is just total bullsh*t! How stupid do they think Democrats are? Do they think we're not going to bolt the first time a viable Independent candidate makes the national scene? We Democrats are FED UP with the so-called Leadership. Mukasey should not be allowed out of committee. WHAT A DISGRACE TO AMERICA THAT A NOMINEE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TORTURE IS--AND--U.S. SENATORS ARE STILL GOING TO CONFIRM. DISGRACEFUL!!

招商加盟连锁网 wrote on November 12, 2007 4:19 AM:

“招商加盟连锁网”是商机在线旗下的自主产品线，是加盟连锁行业中最专业、最全面的的招商信息平台,为加盟者提供项目齐全、涵盖面广、运营规范、诚实可靠的招商加盟信息发布平台。

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)