Mukasey Passes Judiciary Committee

No surprise here, but the Senate Judiciary Committee today voted to send Michael Mukasey on to a full Senate vote for confirmation as Attorney General.

The vote was 11 to 8, with two Democrats, Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, joining all nine Republicans on the panel in backing the nominee. Eight Democrats voted against Mr. Mukasey.

Feinstein's vote is predictable. She hasn't been a Democrat or a progressive for years, in my opinion, with her constant joining with Senators like Orrin Hatch to promote more tough on crime bills.

Schumer is more of a disappointment. Not because he is a progressive on criminal justice issues and this is a change of hat for him -- he isn't -- but because it seems like he voted for Mukasey just to avoid looking like a jerk for suggesting his name in the first place. In other words, he cares more about his reputation than what's good for the Justice Department.

Of course, Schumer says otherwise.

Update: Here are Sen. Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin's statements.

< Political Bloggers at BlogWorld | Rudy's Memory Loss on Crime Reduction >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Disgusting (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:18:38 AM EST
    and made moreso by the amazing historical convergence that today is also the 90th anniversary of the Bolsheviks' October Revolution which brought Lenin and the Communists to power in Russia.  I'd like to think it ironic that Cheney, the neocons and the rest of the Republican party have so closely modeled their political work - thoroughly politicizing justice, torturing their opponents, casting them into prisons of unimaginable cruelty, wasting the wealth of the nation of harebrained schemes, empire building and trying to remake the world's politics in their image - on the way the Communists ran the Soviet Union into the crapper and kept it there.

    It isn't ironic.  It's sick.

    America, what was left of it, died this morning.  

    Thanks, Chuck.

    Schumer apparently decided (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:01:12 PM EST
    that it was good politics to support this. The best argument he can make is the one he did make: that the caretaker would be worse. But that still doesn't justify a vote to endorse torture.

    National self destruction. (1.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    The wave of the future?

    searches (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by diogenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:15:53 PM EST
    Google was not specific.  Wikipedia's most recent entry on waterboarding referred to a Wall Street Journal article citing "sources" that said that only three people were waterboarded.  Wikipedia, at least, nowhere else gave a specific number of people who other sources thought were waterboarded.

    You are a psychiatrist, correct? (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:12:34 AM EST
    What is the psychiatric term for people who blame their tools for their failures?

    link (none / 0) (#8)
    by syinco on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:55:59 AM EST
    Saw this article (see link therein) on Gabe's site.  I haven't read the report. Per Gabe's comments, it appears that the count refers only to CIA activities, but does not account for what the army or others may have done.

    Frustrating (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:20:50 AM EST
    That is really the only way to define this.  

    I need a link (none / 0) (#5)
    by diogenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:02:34 PM EST
    Bill O'Reilly, hardly the most dependable source, claimed on his show today that only three persons have actually been waterboarded.  Is this true, or if not how many persons have been waterboarded?

    There is a new tool on the web (1.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:20:13 PM EST
    As usual (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:07:19 AM EST
    you make a claim and supply no proof.

    Are you allergic to facts?

    Or is it that you don't dispute O'Reilly's claim?

    Me? I don't know and don't care. Waterboarding is not torture.