New Pick for AG Less Likely To Take Advantage of People Doped Up in Hospital

Today dubya nominated retired federal judge Michael B. Mukasey as Gonzo's successor at the top of the Department of Justice. Most of the articles I have read paint him as a "compromise" choice and a concession to Democrats and all those critical of the Britney Spear's VMA performance that this administration has become (analogy shamelessly stolen from Jezebel).

While I agree that he seems to be less bat shit crazy, I'm not totally sold. As a federal judge, he did seem to adhere to the constitution. He is also the judge that signed the material witness warrant of Joseph Padilla and was involved with his case while it was in New York. At one point during that case, he siding with Padilla over the government.

Since he has retired, however, he has not hesitated to wax poetic (see op ed piece here) about how the war on terror merits different standards for criminal convictions and how our system is not prepared for this on-going struggle. For example, at one point in his op ed, he said:

On one end of the spectrum, the rules that apply to routine criminals who pursue finite goals are skewed, and properly so, to assure that only the highest level of proof will result in a conviction. But those rules do not protect a society that must gather information about, and at least incapacitate, people who have cosmic goals that they are intent on achieving by cataclysmic means.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is said to have told his American captors that he wanted a lawyer and would see them in court. If the Supreme Court rules--in a case it has agreed to hear relating to Guantanamo detainees--that foreigners in U.S. custody enjoy the protection of our Constitution regardless of the place or circumstances of their apprehension, this bold joke could become a reality.
(emphasis added).

So it seems that when he did adhere to constitutional standards in his courtroom he did it somewhat begrudgingly. Which, to be sure, is an improvement. But now that he is a position of a policy maker, I don't think he will exhibit the same impartiality he once had as a trial judge. While he seems competent (again, an improvment), I do not believe that he really is a concession to democrats or will significantly change the administration's stance on the war on terror.

Bedtime for Gonzo

This week in "It's about effing time," Attorney General Gonzales has resigned. I think it is fitting that two years since Katrina and the shameful discovery that Bush had appointed a friend with no experience as the head of FEMA, that we once again learn the price of nepotism and of appointing people based on loyalty.

While Gonzales has impressive credentials (unlike many other appointees and attempted appointees like Harriet Miers), his loyalty to this administration was dangerous to us all. The head of the Department of Justice must have the independence to question the legality of executive branch decisions, not rubber stamp and advocate them. Whether it was the questionable firings of some of the U.S. Attorneys, or the highly suspicious hospital visit to get Ashcroft's ok for the domestic surveillance program, Gonzales has been no friend to the office or the Constitution.

¡y adiós muy buenas!

Bush Not Much for Bread, Circuses

Here's an article from the Houston Chronicle

May 21, 2007, 2:04PM
Bush defends Gonzales, dismisses plan for no-confidence vote
By BEN FELLER Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press CRAWFORD, Texas — President Bush insisted on Monday that embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales still has his support and denounced Democratic plans for a no-confidence vote as "pure political theater.

Political theatre you say? Hmmm, seems to me you've become quite the thespian yourself!

From the famous Mission Accomplished Photo Shoot....


...to having the parents of a fallen American Soldier do a cameo at the state of the union address back in 2005.
Or this little gem


Cuz that's a genuine and substantive way to deal with Malaria, right?

Narrowly Missed: Harriet Miers' incredible judicial objectivity

Remember Harriet Miers? Ex-Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers? A.k.a. the smartest person within 30' feet of shrub's office?

Well, as it turns out she was the one who started the ball rolling in the recent wave of US Attorney firings. In fact, she originally suggested in February 2005 (as White House Counsel) that all 93 of the US Attorneys should be fired at once. See article form SFGate. That sounds like a great way to fight terrorism! It also sounds like a great way for Karl Rove to get his 'ol buddy Tim Griffin in the Arkansas vacancy.

This seems to fly in the face of the White House's explanation now, that 1) the White House wasn't involved in the terminations and that 2) the final 8 US attorneys were fired only because of work-performance issues.

There has been some suggestion that the San Francisco's own Kevin Ryan was sacrificed because he was vigorously investigating and prosecuting the stock-option back dating cases in the valley of silicon (article at valleywag). Something must have happened though for the powers to change their mind though, because he was originally on the list of "Stellar performers," according to this NYT article.