Senate Narrowly Confirms Mukasey as Attorney General
The Senate reluctantly confirmed the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to become the 81st attorney general late Thursday night despite widespread displeasure over his answers about the constitutionality of a brutal interrogation tactic used on terrorism suspects.
The 53 to 40 vote to confirm President Bush's choice to replace Alberto Gonzales was the closest vote in more than 50 years for someone confirmed to be the nation's top law enforcement officer. Republicans and some Democrats argued that Mukasey was the best nominee lawmakers could hope for in the waning months of the Bush administration, and that it was unlikely the president would send up another nomination if Mukasey were rejected.
After initially being trumpeted on both sides of the aisle as a "consensus nominee", the retired New York federal judge received just six votes from Democrats and one from independent Joseph Lieberman (Conn.) while he was unanimously supported by the 46 Republicans on hand for the late-night vote.
The debate turned on the now-familiar themes of Mukasey's views on an interrogation technique known as waterboarding, something he called "repugnant" but declined to declare as unconstitutional torture because he said he hadn't been briefed on the administration's interrogation practices.
"Torture should not be what America stands for," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who once predicted an easy confirmation but was startled by the nominee's answers in his second day of confirmation hearings last month.
Last night's vote came three weeks after that Oct. 18 hearing, a roller-coaster ride in which Mukasey's nomination came close to being rejected in committee. The four-hour debate turned largely into an internal argument among Democrats, as Republicans ceded large chunks of their floor time to the few members of the majority who supported Mukasey.
Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), whose votes were instrumental in Mukasey's nomination surviving the Judiciary Committee's review earlier this week, both argued that the nominee's views on torture were inexcusable but otherwise praised him as someone who would clean up a Justice Department widely viewed as overly politicized under Gonzale's nearly three-year tenure.
"Politics has been allowed to infect all manner of decision-making (at Justice). Now, we are on the brink of a reversal," Schumer said. While he called Mukasey "dead wrong" on waterboarding, he predicted a defeated nomination would lead to Bush leaving in place an acting attorney general who would not be able to overrule Vice President Cheney or his top aide David Addington on controversial anti-terror practices.
"It would be the Cheney-Addington wing running the Justice Department on security matters," Schumer said.
"No one has explained why more of the same at the Justice Department would be better than putting Judge Mukasey in charge," Feinstein said.
But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said his answers on torture signaled that Mukasey already lacks independence from those powerful forces inside the White House, leaving the Justice Department under the political and legal thumb of Bush's top aides. "Only an attorney general who's not afraid to speak truth to power can be such a leader," Kennedy said.
The debate and vote followed 10 months of upheaval, scandal and widespread resignations at the Justice Department, capped by the resignation of Gonzales in September. Gonzales was widely criticized for politicizing the Justice Department and allowing the firings of U.S. attorneys who weren't considered to be team players by the White House or Republican members of Congress.
All five Senate members running for president -- Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) --missed the vote while campaigning. All four Democratic contenders announced their opposition to the nominee.
Mukasey takes over the Justice Department with the lowest mandate of Senate support dating back at least since the Eisenhower administration, according to research by Washington Post researcher Madonna Lebling. Here's how his 53 to 40 vote stacks up against the confirmation votes of attorneys general dating back to the Reagan administration:
Alberto R. Gonzales (R): 60-36
John Ashcroft (R): 58-42
Janet Reno (D): 98-0
Richard Thornburgh (R): 85-0
Edwin Meese (R): 63-31
William French Smith (R): 96-1
By Eric Pianin |
November 8, 2007; 11:36 PM ET
Previous: UPDATE: Hoyer: 'Impeachment ... Not on Our Agenda' |
Next: The '08 Battle For the Hill: Clinton vs. Bush
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | November 8, 2007 11:56 PM
Hmm. A federal judge who can't determine whether waterboarding is torture.
The water project veto today means nothing when you have a Congress that stil cringes and submits to the despotic and psychotic head of a failed administration in its lame duck last year.
We used to have a country we all could be proud of--but that was a long time ago.
Posted by: reporter1 | November 8, 2007 11:59 PM
Did anyone at WaPo consider that maybe readers would rather see the roll call vote from tonight rather than "news" from the 1980s about how senators, most of whom are no longer in office, voted then? Who voted which way? How did they come up with 53 votes? Who are these six Democrats? NEWS, people
Posted by: KBanx | November 9, 2007 12:22 AM
when an OCCUPATION, sucks the economy dry, demands a lot of a non existent tax base, and contributes very little in_country to the citizens...
and our politicians support it because it's money in their pockets regardless of what the country needs...
as in Dianne Feinsteins' backing of Mukasey...
WELL FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WONDERED WHY FEINSTEIN SWITCHED HER VOTE:
this should help,
HopeSpringsATurtle wrote:
.....
I believe the mask of connivance is slipping as demonstrated by Dianne Feinstein's vote for Mukasey.
Her vote is part of the price she's paying to her master the BushCo war-mongering, war services industry which directly benefits her war-profiteering husband
Richard Blum, a 75% partner in PERINI CORPORATION.
PERINI is a construction company that has received nearly a billion dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds.
end of HopeSpringsATurtle quote.
______________________________
SO DIANNE FIENSTEIN IS AN agent of Israel, an "Israel FIRST!!!," non-citizen disguised as a citizen of the United States and a WAR PROFITEER...
the quote is from a poster on the Paul Kane Blog
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/11/update_hoyer_impeachment_is_no.html
Posted by: interesting that no comments were allowed to influence the vote...thanks WaPo... | November 9, 2007 12:22 AM
so what would be the point in voting for a Democrat in 2008,
if there's no discernible difference between the two parties ?
If you love America,
you gotta hate this 2-part system.
.
Posted by: Brian | November 9, 2007 12:23 AM
when an OCCUPATION, sucks the economy dry, demands a lot of a non existent tax base, and contributes very little in_country to the citizens...
and our politicians support it because it's money in their pockets regardless of what the country needs...
as in Dianne Feinsteins' backing of Mukasey...
WELL FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WONDERED WHY FEINSTEIN SWITCHED HER VOTE:
this should help,
HopeSpringsATurtle wrote:
.....
I believe the mask of connivance is slipping as demonstrated by Dianne Feinstein's vote for Mukasey.
Her vote is part of the price she's paying to her master the BushCo war-mongering, war services industry which directly benefits her war-profiteering husband
Richard Blum, a 75% partner in PERINI CORPORATION.
PERINI is a construction company that has received nearly a billion dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds.
end of HopeSpringsATurtle quote.
______________________________
SO DIANNE FIENSTEIN IS AN agent of Israel, an "Israel FIRST!!!," non-citizen disguised as a citizen of the United States and a WAR PROFITEER...
the quote is from a poster on the Paul Kane Blog
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/11/update_hoyer_impeachment_is_no.html
Posted by: hip hip hoorah, for sleazieness in action.... | November 9, 2007 12:24 AM
The votes that the author lists for other attorney general nominees is very interesting and proves that no confirmations are going to be easy from this point on. It also seems that Janet Reno should not have been approved 98-0.
Posted by: danielhancock | November 9, 2007 12:26 AM
I'm at least as concerned about Mukasey's approving view of the so-called "unitary executive" as I am about waterboarding and other forms of torture used by the Bush Administration.
Posted by: Ed Szewczyk | November 9, 2007 12:32 AM
Hard to buy the argument that Mukasey is the best we can get.
I like the alternative "no one" to an AG who subscribes to the Fuehrerprinzip - the President is above the law and the Constitution.
Failure of basic reasoning from the two "good" Democratic senators or some other motive?
Posted by: Roger Thomas | November 9, 2007 12:49 AM
Dianne Feinstein:
"Some people, I think, want to keep the issue [of torture] alive rather than solve the problem. I am not one of those people," Feinstein said. "This is the only chance that is going to be offered to put new leadership in the Department of Justice. If you believe it is in disarray, there is only one action to take."
Oh my, heaven forbid we discuss the fact that Bush is, in fact, torturing people after repeatedly saying, the US doesn't torture. But Bush is clearly authorizing torture the torture of people under his adminisration.
Why is Feinstein an agent of torture, and why does she want to help Bush hide the act of doing it? How nasty a law breaker does Bush have to get before Dems stop acting like those rubber stamp Repubs? Why is a Democrat congresswoman, Feinstein so happy to take on the sins of loyal Bushism? You have to wonder if Bush is already responsible for murder since waterboard is the slow, deliberate act of drowning someone, so how do we know that someone hasn't already died from some overzealous CIA agent?
We find out Bush is wiretapping ALL Americas, BEFORE 9/11, we find out Bush is indeed torturing people, and now we see that Dianne Feinstein's got no problem helping Bush HIDE his acts of torture.
Dems are becoming accessories, accomplices, aiding and abetting the criminal behavior of this administration. Running from impeachment of Bush's sin makes the same Dems sinners too.
John Dean can now write the book "Liberals Without Conscience," and at the very least, why should Feinstein's attempt to help Bush hide his act of torture, not cost her, her seat? I'm totally disgusted with both Sen. Feinstein, And with Sen. Schumer for having recommend Mukasey as he is NOT an independent judge, certianly I think, no longer a respected member of judiciary if he can't even stand up against Bush's know acts of torture. It's not fair that their are foot soldiers serving jail time right now due to Bush, the nation's "decider", and his heinous orders and policies of torture.
Posted by: me-again | November 9, 2007 7:41 AM
So who are the Dems going to go to (or blame) when Bush and Co. pull a Musharraf?
Posted by: Dodie | November 9, 2007 2:04 PM
Why doesn't the Washington Post publish the yeas and nays on the 53-40 Mukasey vote? Knowing which Senators said Yes and which No would be at least as interesting as knowing that Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama (nice of the Post to put this in alpha order) didn't vote - or that Lieberman, to no one's surprise, voted yes.
Only six Democrats voted yes!? Who were they? Schumer, Feinstein and who else? (Lieberman is not a Democrat, as was made clear in the 2000 Presidential election, and clearer still in 2004.)
Posted by: Edward Thomson | November 9, 2007 6:47 PM
Why doesn't the Washington Post publish the yeas and nays on the 53-40 Mukasey vote? Knowing which Senators said Yes and which No would be at least as interesting as knowing that Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama (nice of the Post to put this in alpha order) didn't vote - or that Lieberman, to no one's surprise, voted yes.
Only six Democrats voted yes!? Who were they? Schumer, Feinstein and who else? (Lieberman is not a Democrat, as was made clear in the 2000 Presidential election, and clearer still in 2004.)
Posted by: Edward Thomson | November 9, 2007 6:49 PM
The voters need to get serious about doing
their part to clean up the corruption and
total incompetence and this phony crap
now going on by both parties Democrat and
Republican by voting out every Incumbent
US Senator and US Congressman or Congresswoman now in Congress both do nothing gutless coward Democrats and Bush
Nazi Republican Butt Kissers,while we still
have a country left to do so!
Posted by: Sandra Long | November 28, 2007 9:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
It's funny that Schumer mentions Addington. Addington runs things anyway, and Mukasey will end up just going along.