Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Charles Schumer: A Vote for Justice

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 07:44 AM
Original message
Charles Schumer: A Vote for Justice
I guess he won't be swayed regardless of what anyone else thinks. And BTW, if Musakey would resign should he find * has violated any laws, why is he enabling the hiding of the crimes-so he doesn't have to resign? Another * puppet on the way.

A Vote for Justice


By CHARLES SCHUMER
Published: November 6, 2007


I AM voting today to support Michael B. Mukasey for attorney general for one critical reason: the Department of Justice — once the crown jewel among our government institutions — is a shambles and is in desperate need of a strong leader, committed to depoliticizing the agency’s operations.

The department has been devastated under the Bush administration. Outstanding United States attorneys have been dismissed without cause; career civil-rights lawyers have been driven out in droves; people appear to have been prosecuted for political reasons; young lawyers have been rejected because they were not conservative ideologues; and politics has been allowed to infect decision-making.

We are now on the brink of a reversal. There is virtually universal agreement, even from those who oppose Judge Mukasey, that he would do a good job in turning the department around. My colleagues who oppose his confirmation have gone out of their way to praise his character and qualifications. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, for one, commended Judge Mukasey as “a brilliant lawyer, a distinguished jurist and by all accounts a good man.”

Most important, Judge Mukasey has demonstrated his fidelity to the rule of law, saying that if he believed the president were violating the law he would resign.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/opinion/06schumer.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. *snort*
chuck's using Whitehouse to make his case? How ironic, considering that Whitehouse stands firmly against Mukasey after hearing him testify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I think Schumer should quit digging; I wonder if he has a guilty
conscience, though I suspect that's too much to ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. the thugs must have some very compromising photos of him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. i suspect his ego crowds out his conscience n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. he's pretty close to china already. Why quit now?
I can see (barely) how his recommendation of mukasey requires him to maintain his position. but Feinstein is worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. No, you're voting for Mukasey because you struck some kind of deal
and because you have a hidden agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. He is voting for torture. No way this guy should be in a leadership position. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. you know, I must ask why a dem is working so hard to defend a * nominee
voting for him....ok, but still wrong. At least then you're simply misgquided.

but...

catapulting the propaganda, carrry the water for Bush and his nominee? Going out of your way to try to convince people its the right thing?

that's not misguided, that's complicit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:13 AM
Original message
Yes, complicit, and no amount of pretty words will mask that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
7. Chuckie make a big boo boo....suffers from Pubitis which affects reasoning
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
9. Corn laced Bovine Caca
"his fidelity to the rule of law...saying that if he believed the president were violating the law he would resign."

Yeah..Mister if the president does it it isn't illegal is really all about the rule of law


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
11. So is it o.k. to admit I hate this guy now?
I've always kept that to myself since most liberals just seem to loooooove Chucky Schumer. But from the first time I saw him in a round table debate with Alfonse D'amato when he first ran however many years ago, I've gotten a skeevy feeling from Schumer. He just seemed so phony and self serving and was preening for the camera more than answering the questions and even back then his answers seemed absurdly calculating even for a politician. And when anyone looks bad even standing next to Alfonse D'amato then you definitely know that somethings amiss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. I'm A-OK with that, vi5. He deserves our wrath. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
12. Whatever helps you sleep at night, Chuck.....
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonhomme Richard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
13. "if he believed the president were violating the law he would resign."
What a load of horse shit. What does he mean "he would resign"? The shithead isn't supposed to resign. He's supposed to arrest the law breaker and prosecute him.
That to me says volumes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. So in the interim, he's hiding the crimes by not admitting torture is a
crime. And this is supposed to make sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. What a concept asking the A.G. to enforce the law.
Bottom Line: Mukasey has one Job, to be a firewall between investigations
and this illegal adminstration. Mukasey had a meeting with a bunch
of right wingers who vettted him about this task and when asked by
a senator why he took that meeting Mukasey said. "Because the White
House asked me to." And when asked by whom in the White House Mukasey
said, "I don't remember."

Who Vetted Mukasey?

by emptywheel

Here's an interesting question from Dick Durbin to Mukasey. It addresses whom the Administration felt it needed to give buy-in before nominating Judge Mukasey:

11. According to the Washington Post, before you were confirmed you "spent part of the weekend meeting with leading figures in the conservative world, seeking to allay their concerns about philosophy and suitability for running Justice Department."

a. With whom did you meet?

ANSWER: Prior to the announcement of my nomination, I met with former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Lee Casey, Leonard Leo, David Rivkin, Jay Sekulow, and Edward Whelan.

b. Who asked you to take these meetings?

ANSWER: Officials within the White House. I cannot remember the specific individuals.

So:

* A former Attorney General implicated in Iran-Contra and additional corruption allegations.
* Casey and Rivkin, a one-two team serving as the public intellectuals defending the unitary executive
* Leo, the Executive VP of the Federalist Society alleged to have been involved in the Civil Rights Division politicization
* Sekulow, the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, one of the brains behind the Terry Schiavo circus, and someone with his own ethical challenges
* Ed Whelan, himself a bit of a public intellectual for the right, not to mention a former OLC lawyer when most of the crap was written and--my personal favorite--a former Senior Vice President of Verizon

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/1...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
14. piss off chuck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
18. All voters in New York please remember Schumer voted for torture
by nominating this AG, the Dept. of Justice will never be the same until we restore our integrity and high moral ground that has been under attack and raped by this thuggish regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
19. He DARES to call this a vote for justice?!?
Caving to a pro-torture administration that holds itself above the law is not a vote for justice. It's a vote of moral cowardice. Fuck Chuck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Up is down, torture is justice. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC