I guess I can understand how Sen. Kerry wouldn’t have wanted to discuss impeachment of AG Gonzales if the Dems can’t even whip the votes together for a vote of no confidence. How disappointing.
Interesting to hear how Republicans were afraid of “political retribution” for voting no confidence. Good grief, folks, this was your get-out-of-jail-free card. Now the Dems can hang Gonzales around your neck like the millstone he is — if they’re smart and aggressive enough, never a sure thing.
Joe Lieberman, of course, voted to sustain the filibuster. How’s it going down there, Connecticut voters? Happy with your decision? Hey, just 66 more months of this. (I can’t wait for the next CT-Sen approval poll.)
More important than all of this: How does the country get through 18 more months of a blatantly corrupt Justice Department? How can there be any faith whatsoever in the decisions they make, in their choice of prosecutions, in the rule of law itself?
They would vote to impeach the cretin. This is just another example of the Democratic Party lacking backbone. File under Vote to Approve Invasion of Iraq (cc: John Kerry, Hillary Clinton).
is now the only option — as it in fact always was. Would we get the 2/3 needed? Maybe not. But it’s a fight well worth fighting. This “no confidence” vote was always bullshit.
I actually agree with Trent Lott:
<
p>
He’s actually right. Now that non-binding resolution has failed it’s time to dig in and go for impeachment. I know it’s counterintuitive to say that, since we didn’t have the votes for no-confidence. But here’s why I think we should be more aggressive:
<
p>
Democrats didn’t benefit from backing down on Iraq. I don’t think they’ll benefit from backing down on the AG either. A major problem Democrats are perceived to have is a lack of spine. One way we can counter this image is to find an issue which has the following qualities:
<
p>
1) we are plainly correct — it’s the right thing to do
2) involves significant political risk with potentially huge political gain
3) when pressed– moderate Republicans will more likely give in to our frames (see: Collins)
4) there is clear goal which is reachable within a reasonable timeframe
5) is a decisive action rather than one piece of a hole which may or may not fix an overarching problem
6) fits into negative narratives of the Bush Administration as well as Republicans in general
<
p>
Clearly, I believe the impeachment of Gonzales is such an issue. Next, Democrats ought to push hard to get the entire Democratic caucus (including, by the way, Lieberman (CT-Lieberman) on board. Make it clear how hard we’re trying to get it through. Democratic candidates for President who are in the Senate should use this as an action alert/means of building their e-mail lists. Start running ads in moderate Republican states. In short, Democrats should exert some muscle and spend some political capital and see what they can come up with. If impeachment hearings begin, they’ll have a major success provided that they make sure that it’s on the merits and not just political theater which nobody can stand (a la Clinton impeachment which backfired on Republicans). If they do impeach Gonzales it will be a MAJOR victory. If they don’t impeach him, they’ll at least show their base that they’re listening, and show folks not in their base that they have a spine and will stand up for what Democrats believe in. Which, incidentally, is the right thing to do anyway.
Whoops! Bad link. here is the correct link that shows neither Bush nor Democrats benefit from the Iraq funding fight. Also, number 5 should read “5) is a decisive action rather than one piece of a whole which may or may not fix an overarching problem.” In other words, focus on an issue with a real silver bullet. Just as Gates is an improvement over Rummy, I think any replacement of Gonzales would be an improvement.
Endorses John Yoo for Attorney General!
<
p>
I’m all for impeachment– for pressuring US Attys to use the power to prosecute on political grounds NOT for firing some guys– but would not expect the next AG to be an improvment, just as Gonzo is no improvement over the now-lamented Ashcroft.
If an impeachment is actually successful in ousting Gonzales, I think the political pressure/momentum at that point could pressure the government to appoint somebody better. I say that because when Rumsfeld was forced to go after the ’06 elections, the political pressure was to appoint Gates. Gates is not great or even good, but he’s better than Rumsfeld.
A vote of “no confidence,” even if it were to succeed in the Senate, is meaningless. And Speedy Gonzales’s opponents in Congress don’t have the votes in the Senate to remove him, even if he were to be impeached in the House.
<
p>
One tactic might be for the House just to defund the Office of the Attorney General in the next appropriations bill. I suppose that Speedy’s supporters in the private sector could raise some money to support him, but, if not, the DoJ could function satisfactorily without him–the district prosecutors would still be funded. I’d love to see a budget battle like that.
…regarding Joe LIEberman. It would be nice if the Democrats had the cojones to eject him from their caucus, even if it meant in the short term giving up control of the Senate. It’s likely that the Dems will pick up more seats in the Senate in the 2008 election, and that’s the only reason that he remains in the Democratic caucus. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, he’s nothing more than an obstruction to Democratic policies.
It’s called payback. The folks who purported to be his friends and allies shanked him when it came down to the wire. Why, because they have no backbone. This word seems to be a common descriptor of late.
<
p>
Lieberman has always been the voice of reason. He was never a loon or a renegade. He was a party soldier and the party abandonned him.
<
p>
Gonzales mauy be guilty of being and incompetent boob, but I don’t think he is corrupt. I’ll put in a caveat that I’m ging him that benefit of the doubt.
<
p>
During and after the Ashcroft nomination there was nothing but weeping and wailing and the wringing of hands, “It’s the end of times!” Turns out that John Ashcroft was very reasonable and honest. The apologies were deafening when he stepped down. Again “much sound and fury signifying nothing”.
<
p>
Clinton canned all of Bush’s US Attorney’s. Where was the outrage? They are political appointees. Live by the sword, die by the sword.A political hack is a political hack of any stripe. I would guess most of thos hack attorneus take those jobs because they couldn’t survive in the real world drumming up business so they kiss some politicians backside for the monthly kiss from the US Treasury.
<
p>
Just look at that nitwit we are presently blessed with in Massachusetts. He’s a real legal giant. Now there is a classic Bush appointee. He’ll never get the axe. He likely beat out Nifong by seconds getting that job.
<
p>
<
p>
I’d like to know your definition of reason. Lieberman continues to firmly support an irrational invasion despite all the evidence that it was built on BS. John Ashcroft was intent on decimating the Constitution with his midnight rewrite of the Patriot Act.
Not being a legal scolar, how does history handle Lincoln’s suspension of The Writ during the Civil War?
U.S. Const., art. I, s. 9:
<
p>
<
p>
Does that answer your question?
…the secession of the Southern states could reasonably be considered “rebellion.”
<
p>
It should be noted that Lincoln did perform acts that were probably unconstitutional during the War of Northern Agression. It is probable that Lincoln’s unilateral suspension of habeas corpus, without Congressional approval, would have been considered unconstitutional–recall that the habeas clause is in Article I (Congress), not Article II (executive). It is also probable that Lincoln’s detention of members of the Maryland legislature to stymie Maryland’s likely secession was also unconstitutional.
and if memory serves, FDR also was nown to take periodic liberties. The immediate execution of several alleged german spies/sabateurs comes to mind. Not detention, execution.
The immediate execution of several alleged german spies/sabateurs comes to mind. Not detention, execution.
<
p>
While it is correct that FDR was not exactly friendly to civil liberties during WWII–confining Americans of Japanese descent along the West Coast in concentration camps comes to mind. Regarding the case you are probably referring to of the eight German spies that were caught in the US, they were not immediately excuted. Six of them were executed and the other two sent to prison after a trial before a military tribunal.
The Senate Democrats could employ a filibuster strategy to deny confirmation votes on all of the pending and future U.S. deputy and assistant attorney general nominees, ATF Director-designate Michael Sullivan (currently the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney), and all recently nominated U.S. Attorneys until President Bush demands the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales. For example, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty recently announced his resignation from the Justice Department, seeking to distance himself from the ethically and legally dubious action of the Attorney General.
<
p>
Such a strategy essentially prevents Gonzales from being able to administer the Department of Justice to advance the Bush administration’s reactionary legal agenda by leaving by-the-book career prosecutors in charge of the some of key divisions of the U.S. Justice Department including the criminal and civil divisions.
<
p>
It would take some spine from Senate Democrats to employ such a Draconian filibuster strategy, but the Senate Democrats have the parlimentary tool (i.e. the filibuster) and the votes (41) to frustrate the efforts of Gonzales to adminster effectivley his Department and associated agencies if he continues to refuse “to do the right thing” and bid hasta la vista from the U.S. Justice Department. Gonzales should simply then return to Texas to begin the job he really was cut out for—imposing a 100 year classified status stamp on all Bush administration Justice Department and White House papers stored at the Bush Library at Southern Methodist University.
…the President, through the Atty Gen, can fire, and, more importantly, appoint US attorneys without Senate confirmation. It is the ability to appoint US Attorneys without Senate confirmation that is the important issue.
<
p>
It is probable that, when a Democrat is next selected president, he or she will make use of that power. The Republicans, which pushed through the measure, will likely rue the day that they did.
Here’s an interesting hypothetical. What you are essentially advocating is destroying the justice dept to save it. The oath of office, if memory serves, states that one will, protect, defend, and preserve the constitution, and protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic (exerpted).
<
p>
How much dismantling, impeding, subtrafuge, stonewalling, which may or may not result in a collapse of the effectiveness of the justice dept. constitutes the constitution to be threatened or violated?
<
p>
I CANNOT understand how Kerry wouldn’t discuss impeachment! Kerry’s reticence makes no sense as a tactic or a strategy for getting rid of Gonzales. It’s just another example of Kerry worrying about his national reputation. He’s afraid to offend anyone, even the most deluded Bushies. “If the Dems can’t…” = not enough of them will stand up and be counted. That includes Kerry.
Is and forever will be an empty suit. Why has this been such a difficult observation and admission for the voters of Massachusetts. Why is it that it takes an act of unbelievable vileness to preclude re election in Massachusetts.
<
p>
Perhaps the issue is not Kerry, perhaps the issue is what is wrong with us—the voters.