« My 9/11 Article | Main | Newspaper in Kucinich's District Rips Him a New One »

Reid vows to block Olson as AG

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he will block the nomination of Ted Olson if the President selects him as Attorney General, Reuters is reporting:


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed on Wednesday to block former Solicitor General Theodore Olson from becoming attorney general if President George W. Bush nominates him to replace Alberto Gonzales.


Read it all at the link above. Reid labels Olson "partisan" as an excuse for opposing him. Olson, of course, lost his wife Barbara in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. It will be interesting to see if this is just more of Reid's loudmouthed bluster with nothing to back it up.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/24059.

Comments (101)

Well, Republicans won't be ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Well, Republicans won't be able to block inquiries into Olsen's involvement in the Arkansas Project (a truly non-partisan affair, I'm sure) this time around. It has been awhile since the Soros of the right, Richard Mellon Scaife, was in the spotlight.

Probably not a wise choice on the part of the President. Or is it....?

"Or is it....?"Who... (Below threshold)
yo:

"Or is it....?"

Who knows? Bush tossed Miers' into the fray for SCOTUS. (?!)

Having lost a family member... (Below threshold)
uhh:

Having lost a family member on 9/11 is relevant how? If anything, it might make one insufficiently impartial, but that's not likely the reason you mention his personal loss, is it...?

Does it really matter who w... (Below threshold)
superdestroyer:

Does it really matter who will be Attorney General for the last 15 months of the last Republican administration to exist. Does Ted Olsen really want the resume line of former Attorney General so bad that he will go through with this.

President Bush should just have an acting AG for the last 15 months instead of going through the hassle.

Scary Harry Reid being the ... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Scary Harry Reid being the usial unreasonible demacratic mindless jackass

I can think of only one can... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

I can think of only one candidate that Harry Reid would approve of for AG: Lionel Hutz..

If you libs want a quality ... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

If you libs want a quality appointee how about Janet Reno?

lololol

That's perfect, Peter! The... (Below threshold)
mantis:

That's perfect, Peter! The best part, smoking monkeys for everyone!

Having lost a family mem... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Having lost a family member on 9/11 is relevant how?

Relevant to his performance on the job? Probably not. Politically relevant? Oh yes. The new AG won't really have any effect on justice in the short time he's the boss, but the political angle will be "Reid is blocking the guy who we think is the most serious on terrorism."

If the Democrats are successful and a terrorist act of any significance happens, they're gonna pay a price. As a conservative I just have to laugh at people who think the Democrats will sweep the elections in '08. They are, and more importantly appear to be, incompetant.

I don't usually follow Denn... (Below threshold)
Jer:

I don't usually follow Dennis Miller; however, he does capture my sentiments with this:
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2865638

mantis ~ If you want to go ... (Below threshold)

mantis ~ If you want to go down Memory Lane during confirmation hearings, be our guests. We actually enjoy it when you feed red meat to the far left.

~~~~~~

uhh ~ I mentioned it to identify Olson for those who don't know.

It obviously sets up an interesting political situation.

If you want to go down M... (Below threshold)
mantis:

If you want to go down Memory Lane during confirmation hearings, be our guests. We actually enjoy it when you feed red meat to the far left.

Well, last I checked I'm not in the Senate, so it's not me who wants to go down memory lane, but Leahy will.

I'm just saying that if Olson is nominated, it will come up again, and this time Hatch won't be able to block it. If you think it's a good thing for the Senate to talk about Clinton's impeachment (and, you know, impeachment in general), well you may just get your wish.

I've seen the Dennis Miller... (Below threshold)

I've seen the Dennis Miller take down on Harry Reid about two dozen times now. It's good every time I see it. All I can say is Miller might have gone too easy on Dingy Harry. Or, as I like to call him, pipsqueak.

If you think it's ... (Below threshold)
If you think it's a good thing for the Senate to talk about Clinton's impeachment (and, you know, impeachment in general), well you may just get your wish.

If the Senate couldn't convict Clinton during impeachment, they wouldn't be able to impeach Bush.

But, I say if the democratics in Congress think Bush should be impeached, then they should do it. I maintain that's the last thing they want.

Talking about impeaching Bush is far more valuable to them than actually attempting to do it. Once it's done, and fails, they no longer have it as a club.

But, that's not surprising. Democratics are experts at talking about what they are going to do.

mantis:Re: The smo... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

mantis:

Re: The smoking monkeys episode: I love it when he's in court later and starts talking to his liquor bottle ("Oh you're so sweet...and brown. What's that? You want me to drink you? But I can't...not here.") then dashes out to call his AA sponsor...David Crosby. :-)

On his business card: "Lionel Hutz. Cases won in 30 minutes or your pizza's free."

(OK, I think I've officially flamed this thread...lol)

MantisThe Bush admin... (Below threshold)

Mantis
The Bush administration certainly knows where the long knives are in the Olsen confirmation.

I personally don't think the issue of impeachment, whether explicit in the case of Clinton or implicit in the matter of Bush, sways this admin's decision. This president will not be impeached. As John mentioned, it's a suicide play if the Dems try it.

But I agree, Reid is on record, and Leahy will bring it up. Let the facts be known: TAS went to the mat to get Clinton; there was big money behind that effort and they were not successful.


Perhaps Bush can nominate s... (Below threshold)
jim:

Perhaps Bush can nominate someone who clearly isn't a conservative partisan, but a moderate, or even better someone with no partisan political background at all.

Just kidding. Ha! I almost thought that might happen for a second, myself...

Perhaps Bush can n... (Below threshold)
stan25 Author Profile Page:
Perhaps Bush can nominate someone who clearly isn't a conservative partisan, but a moderate, or even better someone with no partisan political background at all.

That would not make any difference. The nominee could be the Janet
Reno or Sandy (Sox) Burglar (God forbid) and Dingy Harry, Leaky Leahy and Smucky Schumer would oppose the nomination, because Bush made it. They are the ones that are the partisan hacks and they want nothing more than to get George W Bush out of the White House.

For Reid to making this kin... (Below threshold)
crazy:

For Reid to making this kind of threat it can only mean one thing - he's already convinced the pick WON'T be Ted Olson. Instead he's expecting a pick more in the mold of John Roberts or Bob Gates. So don't expect Bush to pick a big fight with the Senate Dems over the AG. Sure, they'll pick apart whoever he picks but in the end they'll roll over and let the new AG through as long as he's a well-known Beltway buddy - like Terwilliger, maybe?

So why is Harry Reid compla... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

So why is Harry Reid complaining about who Bush nominates again? Isn't he going to be better than Gonzales? I mean they wanted Gonzales out pretty bad. So to start complaining about the next guy they put up is just plain stupid.

"I didn't like the last guy and i don't like the next... WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

Whats a bunch of friggin cry-babies..

Impeaching Bush for derelic... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Impeaching Bush for dereliction of duty in protecting the Constitution would not be a suicide play for the Dems.
It's what the people (remember them?) want.

However, the Dems are too scared and weak to do it.
How long must the American people wait until they can elect someone not in one of these 2 useless and dangerous parties?

Impeaching Bush fo... (Below threshold)
marc:
Impeaching Bush for dereliction of duty in protecting the Constitution would not be a suicide play for the Dems. It's what the people (remember them?) want.
Really?

Show me.

Jim, you can't whine that T... (Below threshold)
Dirk:

Jim, you can't whine that Ted Olsen isn't qualified. The Attorney General is a partisan position. Democrats give it to liberal partisans and Republicans give it to conservative partisans. It isn't just a "pick the most respected lawyer in the country" position.

Dirk, the Attorney General ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Dirk, the Attorney General **isn't** a partisan position.

Bush has made it that - which is among many terrible things he's done to this nation. But the AG runs the Justice Department. And 'Justice' means impartiality, by definition. So the AG, among many other things, should not be clouded by partisan bias, to the best of their ability.

So nominating someone who is so partisanly biased that he actually worked as a lawyer for G. W. Bush - that seems pretty ridiculous for me.


since when isn't a cabinet ... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

since when isn't a cabinet position a political (thus partisan) position?

this whole idea that the people that the president nominates for this top positions need to be "non-partisan" is bullshit that the democrats are throwing around because they don't want a blatant conservative to be in any kind of public position. it ruins there meme that left-liberalism is the dominant political thought. (it isn't).

it reminds of that crap they pulled when bush was nominating supreme court justices. o'connor's seat is supposed to be a moderate, woman's seat. does that sound familiar? this whole thing is bullshit and bush shouldn't stand for it.

olson is incredibly qualified for the post. if bush wants him there, he should nominate him. and if the democrats object, hammer the shit out of them for being a bunch of cry-baby hypocrites. bastards

besides which, it's not dipshit's call to make, it's bush's. i hope reid loses his next election. he's such a two-faced, opportunistic politician (there ain't a worse insult as far as i am concerned.)

/rant off

be careful, you might one day post on something i have strong feelings about.

Jim:Dirk, the ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

Dirk, the Attorney General **isn't** a partisan position. Bush has made it that

Janet Reno, Democrat. In fact after performing as one of the worst AG's ever she ran and lost in the primary, (as a Dem) Florida governor's office.

Yep, move along... nothing to see here. (at least for Jim)

AG not a "partisan position... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

AG not a "partisan position"? Jim's in fantasyland yet again.

Bush made the AG into a partisan position? Gee, I guess that is the conclusion that someone with a complete lack of history would come to.

How far right-wing, far-rig... (Below threshold)
marc:

How far right-wing, far-right or otherwise, does this sound.

Olson was the attorney for convicted spy Jonathan Pollard while he was in private practice.

One the other hand he was part of the Arkansas Project whose purpose was to take down clinton. (with cause I might add)

However ke_future has it exactly correct all Cabinet posts are partisan by definition. They serve at the pleasure of the President and almost always are of the same party.

I think it all comes down t... (Below threshold)
Mike:

I think it all comes down to the fact that Olson lost his wife on 9/11.

If the Dems are consistent, they will reluctantly admit that this means Olsen has absolute moral authority and therefore cannot be subjected to any criticism of his motives or personal beliefs. End of story.

Of course, who ever said that the Dems were honest or even consistent about what they claim to believe?

They're still mad about 200... (Below threshold)
Steve of Norway:

They're still mad about 2000, which they did lose.

Too much meat on this bone ... (Below threshold)

Too much meat on this bone to leave alone

Impeaching Bush for dereliction of duty in protecting the Constitution would not be a suicide play for the Dems. It's what the people (remember them?) want.

On what basis? Furthermore, one could make that accusation of any President, or for that matter, just about any Senator.

However, the Dems are too scared and weak to do it.They aren't too weak. They might be too scared. But what they are more than anything else is smart enough to know they don't have a case and don't want to resolve the impeachment issue.
How long must the American people wait until they can elect someone not in one of these 2 useless and dangerous parties?

As soon as someone in one of the other useless and dangerous parties actually gets a candidate elected to something greater than county commissioner so the people can see what they stand for.

As long as Libertarian candidates make the feature issue of their campaigns abolishing drug laws, they are going to swim in a sea of futility.

The problem most of these other parties face is they try to build from the top down instead of the bottom up.

Besides, I think too many LP members are whiny butts. As long as they commit those two transgressions, they aren't going to make many inroads.

If the Dems are co... (Below threshold)
marc:
If the Dems are consistent, they will reluctantly admit that this means Olsen has absolute moral authority and therefore cannot be subjected to any criticism of his motives or personal beliefs. End of story.
Yep, that was the Dems story on Cindy SheeHag, she had moral authority. And they stuck with it.

Well, not really in the traditional "stuck to it" sense, in the "stuck with her as long as she didn't become a raving lunatic sense" When she became a liability, then she was cast in the trash heap.

WTH happened to my post...I... (Below threshold)

WTH happened to my post...I don't think it looked like that in preview.

For democratics absolute... (Below threshold)

For democratics absolute moral authority only applies when that person agrees with them. Otherwise they can be safely ignored.

Jack Murtha, Marine, corrupt congresscritter, against the Iraq War = absolute moral authority and wise man.

Sam Johnson, Vietnam POW, Congressman, advocate for Iraq War = who?

Chuck Hagel, Vietnam vet, Sergeant, Senator, against the war = sage, maverick, independent thinker.

John McCain, Vietnam POW, Senator, advocate for the war = just wrong.

John McCain, Vietnam POW, Senator, critic of conduct of war = Maverick, one to be listened to, as long as he's criticizing Bush.

Gee I didn't know that [b]u... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Gee I didn't know that [b]ush was thinking of appointing Cindy Sheehan to be AG marc. Wow1 You must be all in a wad..

Oh, I see now the moral authority of a citizen war-protester should be equated with that of the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Interesting. I also didn't know that someone had the right to be the AG just because his wife was killed on 9/11. Even more interesting.

Jim the Idiot: "Dirk, the A... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim the Idiot: "Dirk, the Attorney General **isn't** a partisan position."

Hmmm.

Is that why John F. Kennedy put his brother Bobby in the AG position?

Would you call that a "non-partisan" selection?

Wow. How do you think Rove made that happen 47 years ago?

He must have jumped into the "Way-back Machine".

Jim = moron

BTW, for lefty ignoramuses,... (Below threshold)
Drago:

BTW, for lefty ignoramuses, Bobby Kennedy was the stud who approved the wiretaps for Martin Luther King, and to this day, libs refuse to criticize him or JFK for that.

If the Dems are co... (Below threshold)
jim:
If the Dems are consistent, they will reluctantly admit that this means Olsen has absolute moral authority and therefore cannot be subjected to any criticism of his motives or personal beliefs. End of story.

You're kidding, right?

The widows of 9/11 victims called "The Jersey Girls" also lost many family members on 9/11. Do you consider them to have moral authority, and can't be subjected to any criticism of motives or personal beliefs?

Unless you were joking, I'm guessing you don't agree.

The democrats obstruct an a... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The democrats obstruct an appointment. No way the obstruction/corruption party would be involved in such dirty tricks. Remember this is a congress that has accomplished '0' in eight months, but bring it on themselves to critize another elected government that has accomplished thousands of times more in the same eight months. Also remember this is the 'criminal' party and the HSU fits, not the party that was supposed to drain corruption out of the swamp called congress. I guess they figure if they fill congress with corruption that overflows the walls it will collapse like the walls in N.O. and they can blame someone else for their failures. The most 'do nothing, 'corrupt' leadership of congress in the history, and it really has became the daily joke in the country.

# 26 - what about Janet Ren... (Below threshold)
jim:

# 26 - what about Janet Reno?

Did she fire qualified competent US attorneys with great employee reviews, who just happened to have zealously prosecuted Republicans?

And did she then develop an inexplicable amnesia that always just happened to obfuscate a line of questioning?

That's the difference between being appointed by a politician, and being a *politically partisan hack*.

Which is why Reid is right to demand someone else other than Olson. It's a shame he lost a wife in 9/11 - that doesn't change his status as being partisan.

I hope Republicans are taki... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I hope Republicans are taking notes for the next time there is a Democrat in the White House, God forbid, and a Republican majority, soon I hope. That was some of the silliest sh#t I have read here. The AG is not supposed to be political. What was Janet Reno? Unbias?

# 27 - SPQR, since you thin... (Below threshold)
jim:

# 27 - SPQR, since you think all appointments of the Attorney General are to the level of partisan hackery that Bush has perpetrated:

Please show me when, in the US entire history, an Attorney General has *ever* fired competent US Attorneys for ***no given reason***, who just happened to be investigating members of the same party.

Since you know so much about history that you say I don't, I'd think this would be quite easy for you.

Boy, the "chalkboard scratc... (Below threshold)
rrita m:

Boy, the "chalkboard scratch" just keeps scraping lame excuses to nay-say Bush's decisions. Did he not get his pudding because he didn't eat his meat?

BTW, comments #6 and #8: Hilarius!

Jim, you still haven't addr... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim, you still haven't addressed the responses to your absurd comment:

Jim: "Dirk, the Attorney General **isn't** a partisan position."

Again Jim, if the Attorney General isn't a partisan position, how do you explain Kennedy appointing his own brother (rabid partisan and nepotism at it's best (worst!))?

Don't worry, we don't really expect a response.

Please show me when, in ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Please show me when, in the US entire history, an Attorney General has *ever* fired competent US Attorneys for ***no given reason***, who just happened to be investigating members of the same party.

Apparently jim wasn't born yet in 1992.

Correction, 1993. . . ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Correction, 1993. . .

Jim, Janet Reno pre... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Janet Reno presided over the killing of American women/children at Waco.
Janet Reno fired 93 prosecutors for daring to investigate Dem corruption
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/flashback-attorney-general-reno-seeks-resignations-from-prosecutors-nyt-1993

Looks like the liberals would prefer an AG like Janet Reno, a sec of state kissing up to terrorists/dictators, and a national sec advisor who stuffed classified information in his trousers. Also looks like liberals are fully with the vile org like Moveon.

Since Jim the idiot asked: ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Since Jim the idiot asked: "Please show me when, in the US entire history, an Attorney General has *ever* fired competent US Attorneys for ***no given reason***, who just happened to be investigating members of the same party."

The Clinton's, who fired all 93 US Attorneys including Jay Stephens, the USA for the District of Columbia who was investigating the House Post Office scandal (including, in particular, Diamond Danny Rostenkowski). Further, at the time of the firings, Jay Stephens was about 1 month away from a major decision concerning whether or not to seek indictments.

Even further, the Whitewater brouhaha was kicking in and the replacing of all 93 USA's caused delays in that investigation.

15 months left, I don't see... (Below threshold)

15 months left, I don't see any new AG as a problem in that span of time.

[edited to comply with TOS re: spam]

You may include your link as your URL, but don't plug it in the comment, or it will be edited out.

Someone please name for me ... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

Someone please name for me a time where the critics of any sitting president were able to have absolute say over who sits in any cabinet position?

Give up? Try never.

Democrats don't let Republicans choose who sits in their cabinets, but Republicans are supposed to let Democrats choose cabinet members??

Only a Democrat would come up with something so blatantly stupid...

Democrats don't let Republi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Democrats don't let Republicans choose who sits in their cabinets, but Republicans are supposed to let Democrats choose cabinet members??
------------------------------------
The modern Dems are socialists, who are now "owned" by the Moveon stalinists. Election is simply a tool for them to acquire power. If they don't win at the ballot box, then they simply bend the rules and use any tricks to get their way. Chavez is a model dem.

Once again, Jim is handed h... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Once again, Jim is handed his ass for making yet more false statements. So we'll see yet another moving of the goal posts by Jim.

Together with more of his misrepresentations as above.

This kind of dishonest rhetoric of his got old a long time ago.

Actually, I thought at leas... (Below threshold)
Diane:

Actually, I thought at least 39% of the Democrats would be thrilled to have Olsen as the AG! Because 39% or so believe 9/11 was set up by Bush (Even Castro said yesterday that it was a rocket which hit the Pentagon).

Mr. Olsen, as AG, could investigate all day long for the next 15 months as to how Bush pulled off getting his (Olsen's) wife in a rocket to hit the Pentagon.

15 months is plenty of time... (Below threshold)
Bill Clinton:

15 months is plenty of time to fire all the folks I hired after I fired all of their predeccsors.

I can't believe Bush left all my minions in place to sabotage his administration for two terms.

You can bet when Hil and I get back in the White House, ALL the Bush bots will get walking papers so we can put our loyal minions back in place.

Bwhaahahahahha

Maybe Barbara Olsen was act... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Maybe Barbara Olsen was actually IN the rocket. Ever think of THAT!

Where's Charlie Sheen when you need him....?

Oh Harry, PLEEEEEESE block ... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Oh Harry, PLEEEEEESE block any and all of the AG nominations. The american people are so pleased with your performance as it is, why not dig the hole deeper. Let's see, currently at 14%, can't go much lower "Mr. Nevada Land Deals".

JFO:I also did... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO:

I also didn't know that someone had the right to be the AG just because his wife was killed on 9/11. Even more interesting.

Have you even looked at the man's resume? I doubt it, because it's patently obvious anything with a "R" attached to their name sends you into spastic fits of rage.

Not to mention no one here has suggested he be chosen for the job based on your delusional view of the situation.

For the record I wouldn't nominate Olsen, for many reasons but none that are related to his resume as a lawyer.

JFO, you've been dipping onto Jim's kool-aid haven't you?

I can't wait to see Harry (... (Below threshold)
Roy:

I can't wait to see Harry (Big Cajones) Reid try to stop Olson. He hasn't been able to do anything else to stop the MINORITY party. It's hard to do anything with a white flag stuck up your butt.

I'm sure Pipsqueak Reid wou... (Below threshold)

I'm sure Pipsqueak Reid would approve of:

Erwin Chemerinsky
Cass Sunstein
Laurence Tribe

Especially that Tribe guy. He's been openly critical of Bush and Cheney as having trampled on the Fourth Amendment.

And Chemerinsky. Whew! He'd be a prize for Harry. One of the Plame-Wilsons attorneys. And he doesn't like Bush very much either.

Dream on Dingy Harry.

John in CA:And... (Below threshold)
marc:

John in CA:

And Chemerinsky. Whew! He'd be a prize for Harry. One of the Plame-Wilsons attorneys. And he doesn't like Bush very much either.

Don't you mean one of Plame-Wilsons former attorneys?

Former after they drop the lawsuit for fear of going under oath and after they milk every last drop out of their book sales.

Former after they ... (Below threshold)
Former after they drop the lawsuit for fear of going under oath and after they milk every last drop out of their book sales.

marc, if they've dropped the suit entirely, I've not heard or read that. Last I heard, I believe from Erwin himself on Hugh Hewitt's show, they were appealing the ruling of the District Court judge.

Although it wouldn't suprise me if they did drop the suit before the had to be deposed and cross examined. Always thought it was as much a n attention getting ploy as it was serious litigation.

I think the appeal goes to the DC Circuit Court. I can't imagine them getting a reversal there.

I'd just like to point out ... (Below threshold)
jpe:

I'd just like to point out that the right considers confirmation an endorsement of policy ("the dems confirmed Petraeus then criticized his strategy!"). By the right's own lights, the Dems ought to oppose Olson, or they lose any ability to legitimately criticize.

Someone please nam... (Below threshold)
jpe:
Someone please name for me a time where the critics of any sitting president were able to have absolute say over who sits in any cabinet position?

Every time. Try reading the Constitution: the Senate can block anyone they choose.

marcI've looked at... (Below threshold)
JFO:

marc

I've looked at Olson's reume over the years and he is qualified to be attorney general. Doesn't mean he's the best candidate but he is qualified.
Unlike wingnuts like you, I really don't drink the kool-aid.

jim, and so many Dems, have... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, and so many Dems, have takem the unconstitutional view that the Justice Department is supposed to be as non-partisan as the Judicial Branch. So why did the framers put the Justice Department under the mantle of the Executive Branch, certainly expected to be partisan? It's so the Executive, sworn to uphold the laws, can do so.

These people who expect a non-partisan Attorney General are subverting the Constitution and denying the people recourse every four years.
=====================================

So, based on your idiot log... (Below threshold)
JFO:

So, based on your idiot logic Kim, The AG, the chief law enforcement officer of the country, has the right to pick and choose which laws of the US to enforce because of "partisanship". Smart, real smart.

Stick to defending Scooter 'The Felon" Libby and your word a day attempt (emphasis on attempt) at witticisms.

JFO:Unlike win... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO:

Unlike wingnuts like you, I really don't drink the kool-aid.

You're obviously a master at selective reading aren't you?

I mean really, your brain musta glazed over like a Krispy Kreme when you missed the part where I said I wouldn't nominate Olsen for various reasons.

Asswipe!

Your credentials as a kool-... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Your credentials as a kool-aid drinker are too voluminous to fill the pages of this site. And you have that arrogant, self-righteous attitude of those on the losing side of ideas.

.

Wrong, JFO, completely misc... (Below threshold)
kim:

Wrong, JFO, completely misconstruing my point. And failing to address it. Were the executive not to have political control of the Justice Department, the electorate is denied its constitutional prerogative to exert control. The Justice Department is in the executive branch. It is specifically not a separated bureaucratic apparatus held hostage to its funders, the legislative branch.

It's a matter of the balance of powers, son, and your course is unbalanced.
==================

This is a liberal argument. Research it before you trash it and the Constitution.
============================

Oh wait, I mistook the stup... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh wait, I mistook the stupid and abusive JFO for jim, or mantis, or omigod Cleo. Where's the A team?
==============================================

KimYou really ough... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Kim

You really ought to learn of what you so freely bloviate about. The "framers" did not "put the Justice Department" under the executive branch. It is a creation of Congress.

As I said, stick to Scooter and the word of the day project little girl. You look silly, but not nearly as stupid.

Now where's some of your "A" team? You can be the cute little cheerleader, well the cheerleader anyway.

Well, I think I see the pro... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, I think I see the problem.
===============================

Yes, you're way over your h... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Yes, you're way over your head.

Are you truly trying to con... (Below threshold)
kim:

Are you truly trying to convince us that the Justice Department of these here United States is not a part of the Executive Branch?
==============

(JFO runs to finally do som... (Below threshold)
kim's sock puppet:

(JFO runs to finally do some research)
---------------------------------------

For god's sake Kim are you ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

For god's sake Kim are you that much of an idiot? Where did I say that? It's you who doesn't know your history or jackshit about the Constitution or the formation of the Justice Department. You made a factually incorrect statement and now you're trying to turn it and twist it.

For the 3rd time now - go be the little girl cheerleader for the "A" team. Or just admit your error and move on. Oh my, I forgot right wingers never make mistakes ala George [b]ush.

So can you address my Const... (Below threshold)
kim:

So can you address my Constitutional point, or do yo even understand it?
=====================

I'm going to call you littl... (Below threshold)
JFO:

I'm going to call you little Kim from now on. Here, from the Justice department itself( you knoe use your little goggilie thing [l]ittle Kim:


"The Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93 (1789) created the Office of the Attorney General. Originally a one-person part-time position, the Attorney General was to be "learned in the law" with the duty "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments." The workload quickly became too much for one person, necessitating the hiring of several assistants for the Attorney General. With an increasing amount of work to be done, private attorneys were retained to work on cases.

In 1870, after the post-Civil War increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States necessitated the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload, a concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162 (1870) setting it up as "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head. Officially coming into existence on July 1, 1870, the Department of Justice, pursuant to the 1870 Act, was to handle the legal business of the United States. The Act gave the Department control over all criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States had an interest. In addition, the Act gave the Attorney General and the Department control over federal law enforcement. To assist the Attorney General, the 1870 Act created the Office of the Solicitor General.

The 1870 Act is the foundation upon which the Department of Justice still rests. However, the structure of the Department of Justice has changed over the years, with the addition of the Deputy Attorneys General and the formation of the Divisions. Unchanged is the steadily increasing workload of the Department. It has become the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws."


See, they say the enforcment of federal laws, not just the laws a partisan AG might feel like enforcing.

Sorry sophist. The founder... (Below threshold)
kim:

Sorry sophist. The founders structured the government with three branches, and the Justice Department is now in the Executive Branch. You seek to avoid or obscure my point with irrelevancies about the historical development of the Department.

Do you understand my point. If you do, can you restate it?
====================

You have no point other tha... (Below threshold)
JFO:

You have no point other than to make factual errors about the Justice Department and it's alleged founding by the "founders." Your tortured logic is that it's partisan in nature and that's how the "founders" wanted it to be.

The founders would roll over in their graves if they knew the way the executive branch is run by {b]ush.

Do you really believe the D... (Below threshold)
kim:

Do you really believe the Department of Justice is not to be under the political control of the executive. Then how is the executive to carry out his sworn duty to enforce the laws?

Suppose, as in your imagined example, the Department is a creature of Congress and refuses to carry out a directive of the President. That is a Constituional dilemma, for which even a cursory reading of the Constitution would find that the Executive must command the Department.

As I say, research it a little more than your quick googling. Try thinking about it, too.
=================================

I'll restate my point. It ... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'll restate my point. It is a liberal Democratic principle that the electorate exert political control of the enforcement of laws by electing an executive every four years whose sworn duty is to enforce the laws, and whose mechanism is a Justice Department under the executive's command. To deny the electorate that power is antidemocratic, you unconscious authoritarian, you.

Now, you try stating the point.
===========================================

Ah, now you change the subj... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Ah, now you change the subject to avoid the issue you raised. But. to answer your question, of course the DOJ is under the control of executive. Political control? I'm not sure what you mean by that since that's a pretty broad term. It's under the control subject to the oversight of the Congress. So, I suspect we agree about that part.

As for the subject of the thread - the partisanship of blocking a nomination. First, I can't abide by Harry Reid or most of the other congressional leaders. He's no better than the last republican bunch engaging in the game of tit-for-tat and one of the reasons I suspect congressional approval is so low - many dems have that view. I have always believed that any person subject to congressional approval should be voted up or down. It's a fiction of the rules of the Senate that allows blockage of votes for nominees.

Kim:To say that li... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Kim:

To say that liberals believe in "political control" of the enforcement of laws in an absurdity. Please explain George[b]ush and his record use of signing statements to avoid enforcing laws.

You understand the point bu... (Below threshold)
kim:

You understand the point but won't admit it. Pfah. Timewaster.
=================

Easier to quit than try to ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Easier to quit than try to refute what I said about [b]ush and his "political " use of signing statements eh [l]ittle kim? Because,of course, it flies in the face of your tortured logic.

re: 45, 46, 47, 48, - Nope... (Below threshold)
jim:

re: 45, 46, 47, 48, - Nope. Bill Clinton came in and fired **all of** the US attorneys, which is something many Presidents come in and do.

He and/or his attorney general did not *selectively* fire only US Attorneys who were pursuing people from his party.

Whereas Bush and Gonzales did exactly that

Once again, that's the line between being appointed by a politician, and being a partisan political hack.

Again Jim, if the ... (Below threshold)
jim:
Again Jim, if the Attorney General isn't a partisan position, how do you explain Kennedy appointing his own brother (rabid partisan and nepotism at it's best (worst!))?

Don't worry, we don't really expect a response.

Drago, whether or not someone is a partisan political hack, is revealed by their actions. Specifically, whether they are using their position to unjustly benefit their party.

Did Bobby Kennedy fire US Attorneys who had great employee reviews, but all just happened to pursue cases against Democrats?

If Bobby Kennedy did that, or something like it, then yes, he was a partisan political hack and JFK was wrong to appoint him and wrong to keep him.

SPQR, you keep making these... (Below threshold)
jim:

SPQR, you keep making these claims that I've done this or done that, and when I ask you to show evidence that I've done it, somehow you don't seem to respond.

Now that I've responded to # 45-48 - care to show me what dishonest statements I've made?

Jim,This is an exa... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,

This is an example of your dishonesty. You are defending a despicable corrupt behavior of a partisan AG who tried to shut down legitimate investigation of corruption by her own party. And you can do it with a straight face.

re: 45, 46, 47, 48, - Nope. Bill Clinton came in and fired **all of** the US attorneys, which is something many Presidents come in and do.

Here the post for you again.
#47, #48
Janet Reno presided over the killing of American women/children at Waco.
Janet Reno fired 93 prosecutors for daring to investigate Dem corruption
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/flashback-attorney-general-reno-seeks-resignations-from-prosecutors-nyt-1993

Looks like the liberals would prefer an AG like Janet Reno, a sec of state kissing up to terrorists/dictators, and a national sec advisor who stuffed classified information in his trousers. Also looks like liberals are fully with the vile org like Moveon.

Name the last "non-partisan... (Below threshold)

Name the last "non-partisan" Attorney General, and someone might take you morons seriously.

Oh wait, I mistook the s... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh wait, I mistook the stupid and abusive JFO for jim, or mantis, or omigod Cleo. Where's the A team?

Busy

Indeed immigrant, and JFO s... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Indeed immigrant, and JFO sez the founding fathers would be spinning in their grave if they knew of how Bush runs the executive branch.

Gee I wonder what they'd say about the democratic party being controlled by a sociopath billionaire and his "hate america first" minions. What would GW think about getting blowjobs in the presidential office? How would "honest Abe" view the Clintons continuous proximity to fundraising scandals, travelgate, Hillary's remarkable cattle futures trading skills, and of course a president who doesn't understand the meaning of "is"? I'll bet Nathan Hale would be pleased to hear Harry Reid telling the world (and our enemies) we've lost the war. And ya know Ben Franklin would be a big fan of democrat politicians frequent vilifying of the troops (see Murtha, Schumer, Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy, etal).

Yeah, Bush'd have 'um spinning alright.

LAI, your post completely i... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, your post completely ignores my post, rather than responding to it.

Once again, firing all attorneys at once, is entirely different than selectively firing attorneys for *no given reason*, who all just "happen" to be investigating high-ranking members of the same party.

The Clinton administration fired a bunch of attorneys at once.

The second Bush administration fired selected attorneys who were all investigating high-ranking members of the GOP.

Please let me know if you understand this difference, before we continue.

ODA315 - you mean, a foundi... (Below threshold)
jim:

ODA315 - you mean, a founding father having an affair with a woman under his power? Such as perhaps Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings?

As for your conspiracy theories apparently relating to George Soros - I guess you're just as upset about the hold Richard Mellon Scaife has on conservatives and the GOP, right?

And as for the tired Whitewater stuff - guess what? The Republican Congress had Bill and Hillary Clinton investigated for 4 years, at a cost of $40 million - and they found *****nothing**** there.

That's nada, zip.

All they found out was that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife - something I and the majority of Americans knew, when we voted for him twice.

As for "vilifying the troops" - please find one quote of any Democratic Senator, COngressman, or Presidential candidate whose said **anything** negative about the troops.

I know this myth is something that makes conservatives feel superior - I'm just letting you know that it has nothing to do with reality.

Please either prove me wrong, or consider readjusting your worldview so that it fits the facts.

This is reality we're in, and we need to recognize facts and have logic that's in step with verified reality in order to have the best chance to survive and prosper.

I just skimmed through the ... (Below threshold)
rrita m:

I just skimmed through the comments, so please forgive me repeating what someone else may have already said. I have a feeling that the only reason the Dems don't like Olson is because he was part of Bush's legal team during the Florida recount in 2000.

The wound that never healed.

He's a partisan? Like there's one in Washington that isn't. If Reid won't acknowledge his qualifications and confirm, there's always the recess announcement...

Jim:ODA315 - y... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

ODA315 - you mean, a founding father having an affair with a woman under his power? Such as perhaps Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings?

Nah, he means what he says. He just left out the congenital womanizer. The most drug addicted president in history, JFK.

As for "vilifying the troops" - please find one quote of any Democratic Senator, COngressman, or Presidential candidate whose said **anything** negative about the troops.

Do we really have to go down the john "cold blooded killer" murtha road again?

Or maybe Kerry's "botched joke"
Or Durbin's "delusional" comment.

Maybe you should recall Durbins comparison of troops at Guantanamo to nazis.

A remark he had to apologize for BTW.

Jim, I have to ask, how high was the stupid tree you fell out of?

And BTW Jim if you want to ... (Below threshold)
marc:

And BTW Jim if you want to refute my assertion JFK wasn't the most drug addicted president in history, DON'T, you'll only continue to affirm what a fool you are.

jim, it is simply not true ... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, it is simply not true that all the fired US Attorneys were investigating Republicans. The general theme of the purge was election fraud. Do you care to look at the details?

JFO, I'll concede you are not stupid; the abusive part sticks---A minus. I maintain it is illiberal, or at least anti-democratic to diminish the influence of the electorate on the Justice department through the regular election of a term limited executive. I don't know enough about signing statements to be coherent. It seems to be an innovation, from successful business practice.
==============================

Ha. Read 'Borking Mr. Olse... (Below threshold)
kim:

Ha. Read 'Borking Mr. Olsen' in the OpinionJournal today. I'm lowering your grade, JFO for sorry sophistry about the separation of powers.
=====================

"The Republican Congress ha... (Below threshold)
RobLACal:

"The Republican Congress had Bill and Hillary Clinton investigated for 4 years,"

Wrong stupid , the criminal clintons had themselves investigated for their CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.


"Please either prove me wrong,"

Ha ha ha , what for ? you prove yourself wrong. You are a liar and a democrat , same thing , case closed.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy