WASHINGTON - President Bush, seeking to avert a possible confirmation fight over a more partisan candidate, chose retired federal judge Michael B. Mukasey Monday to replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "Judge Mukasey is clear-eyed about the threat our nation faces," Bush said. If confirmed by the Senate, Mukasey, a retired federal judge who has handled terrorism cases for more than a decade, would become Bush's third attorney general. Bush said that as chief judge of the busy U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mukasey presided over high-profile national security cases. Would You Like To Know More? All right, who kidnapped and replaced our President?
Judge Mukasey will be launded as "competent" & "fair" until he does the first thing to defend the Bush Admin. actions. Then he will be promptly labeled as an "incompetent, Bush supporting, hack".
You don't know that. So long as Mukasey puts the law first then he should not have any problems. Gonzales put Bush first and law second.
You should be grateful for that much, Dayton, after the stable-managing FEMA director and Harriet Myer's nominations. I'm just glad he didn't nominate the White House butler for AG.
Actually, I read about how the judge had gone out of his way to reject the Bush administration on terrorists in the Padilla case.
^ He is saying that Dayton is correct. As long as he makes decisions that don't go along with the Bush administration's policies, that is "fair." But the first time he makes a decision that upholds the administration, that will show he is a partisan lackey.
Let me note here that my astonishment was not based on the man's Republican-friendliness or lack thereof, but it was a guy with actual qualifications.
To clarify, he's taken both pro- and anti-administration positions as a judge. From what I've read, he's long been thought to be thoughtful and fair. I wouldn't say Democrats love him at this stage. I would say that anyone's better than an Attorney General who was at best incompetent and at worst a potential perjurer. Sorry, no. You're reading far more into what I said than is warranted. I imagine that he is a conservative jurist who will make a number of decisions that agree with Bush. I would only throw the "lackey" description for people who don't seem to exhibit original thought. Though I don't agree with Scalia, for example, on many things, I would never say that he's a lackey of Bush. The same goes for this nominee, judging from what little I've read on him. It depends on how you define "qualifications." I'm of the frame of mind that to head up a prosecutor's office one should have to spend some time in the trenches. As far as I know, Gonzales never personally prosecuted so much as a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk before being appointed AG. Part of the problem with Gonzales, so it's been said, is that he incorrectly conflated his former role as White House Counsel with his new role of AG. An AG has to be somewhat independent from presidential wishes. Reasonable people, of course, may disagree about whether previous experience as a prosecutor is necessary to head up a prosecutor's office.
It's not. Nor did I say that it was. But overseeing prosecutions is his primary job. Now, as I said, reasonable people might say that someone doesn't need to have served as a prosecutor to head up an office of prosecutors. And to a certain extent, they might be right.
