Jusge Michael Mukasey, former chief of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, has been formally nominated by President Bush. He is likely to be an easy confirmation. Judge Mukasey has the reputation of being quite conservative on national security matters. He tended to give the government what it demanded in terms of sealing records, allowing ex parte communications, and upholding claims of presidential powers. After leaving the bench, he also endorsed the notion that the federal courts are not well-suited to handling terrorism cases, despite the fact that he handled the blind sheik case of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and part of the padilla case. He also allowed the abusive use of material witness detentions. Yet, on the other side, he ordered that Jose Padilla be given an attorney. All in all, he is less likely to adopt the extreme, no judicial review approach of this Administration. He has also ruled against the government in some cases, showing a degree of independence. However, he is likely to support programs like the NSA’s domestic surveillance program. Overall, he is a good choice for the Justice Department, which has lost a lot of credibility with judges across the country. As a former prosecutor and former judge, he is well-positioned to repair the extensive damage at the DOJ under the Bush Administration.
For the full story, click here
Okay I’m covnicned. Let’s put it to action.
Frankly, I find the entire matter disheartening. The democrats are content with just voting and losing. They have the ability to shutdown the Senate until civil liberties are protected. They would do that for an appropriations bill but not habeas corpus. Once again, they are creating records for their own protection rather than spending political capital to fight for principle.
good question Diana…I’d like to know your thoughts on that too Professor, I hope to see that on your front page soon.
Heard you on Randi Rhodes Show, I’m gratified you visit there, thank you!
Thanks for the reply.
Will you be writing a comment or column on the Senate’s vote today, which once again, killed Habeas Corpus?
I would also like to know your thoughts on Bush wanting expansion of the Spying Law.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5js647wds8jqn7Eq5uNoIlWeoeHcg
As always, thanks.
Diana:
It is remarkable what lower expectations will do. In prior years, a judge who penned a column suggesting that it was dangerous to give accused terrorists full rights would be viewed as an extremist. Now, he gets a human wave for not advocating hanging them from meat hooks.
Thanks for the note,
Jonathan
Hello Professor!
This is very disappointing. I was hoping for someone more like you, who actually believes in the Constitution, to get the job. 🙂 (not under this regime I suppose…)
It is a pretty sad day when we long for John Ashcroft to be back in the seat. He, at the very least, had enough sense not to renew the domestic spying program.
Having people like this in such powerful positions is scary for the country. I keep wondering how much more bashing the Constitution can take before we lose it completely.
It is all too Orwellian for me. All of this is being done under the “War on Terrorism” umbrella. It is like their little black dress that they put on whenever they want to justify taking another shot at our civil liberties.
Who will save the Republic?