Letters to the Editor
-
Safe bet
"Bush likely believes that there is nobody more qualified for the highest law enforcement office in the land than Ted Olson"
I think its a safe bet that if Bush does indeed think this, its only because someone told him so.
-
Lead with his chin, cover his rear
The President will nominate Olson because:
1) First and foremost, he simply cannot risk an independent Judicial Department coming after him, period. He requires a deeply partisan, loyal soldier. Olson fits the bill.
2) Secondly, he relishes the fight and leads with his chin. He would never, ever defer for the good of the country. Since he is the guardian, the president, the chief, what he feels is good, must be good for the country, and the Democrats are not a legitimate player in this game.
-
Hope so
I would like to see him nominate Olson simply because the Democrats might actually smack him down and make it stick. It would weaken bush & strengthen the Dems (not that I'm a fan of theirs by any means) but it might help to keep bush in his place.
bush has forgotten that the 'advice and consent' clause in the constitution is as important as who he actually nominates and will emphasize the diverse nature of government that has been so forgotten in the last years. I don't know exactly what 'advice and consent' means but the last years are it. In the last years there has been consent but I seriously doubt he has listened to any advice from the congress regarding nominations. Things have changed, the decider needs to get with the program. Oh, congress needs to get with the program too, they just need a little prodding.
bmn
-
And people think investigations don't matter . . .
With Olson as Attorney General, who protects and defends the Constitution?
Let's hope that Harry Reid can deliver on at least this one promise.
-
Now for the bad news.
The bad news is that this guy could actually get confirmed. What a disaster that would be. Pretty sick, huh?
Decent people should complain about this loudly. Besides, Dubya needs to be put in his place, and this might finally be the time to do it.
Dubya needs to start picking replacements who are more fair-minded as less corporatist and totalitarian, people who aren't just going to lie for him.
Cheney: "Suckers!"
-
I doubt the Dems would stand up
Oh they'll talk obscure parliamentary rules, and filibuster and spit that they'll never stand for it. But no one seriously believes they'll follow through. Other than Harriet Meyers, who practically handed them her idiot ass on a platter they've never stood up. In the end all politics is partisan and partisan politics is about protecting and enlarging your own power and nothing else. Ted Olsen? The Dems will shrug and cave on the premise that it's 'only for a year, what could go wrong?'
I can't wait for the gleeful chortling in 2009 from Chris Matthews when he's positively ecstatic that the Republican minority Congress violently opposes the new Dem President, who ever that is.
-
Harry Reid’s Vowed to Stop an Olsen Nomination …
So he’s pretty much a lock for the job. They’re probably ordering the new letterhead at the DOJ as we speak.
-
Olson
Couldn't Harry Reid just refuse to schedule a vote on his nomination? Isn't that what Trent Lott did when Clinton put up William Weld for ambassador to Mexico? I seem to remember Lott saying smugly, "time to look for work."
Or maybe I'm not remembering it right.
-
in other words
if GW nominates Olsen, he once again confirms his status as pathetic little prick.
Jesus. How much more of this are we supposed to take? GW Bush is scum.
I just hope the Dems show some backbone for once. They should roast Olsen, and spit right in Bush's eye.
-
nomination games
it's fairly likely that whoever might be the initial nominee for AG, whether it's Olson or somebody else, will just be a sacrificial nominee designed to get the Democrats to fume and stamp their feet so that Fox News, et al might paint them as unreasonable. Then the 1st nominee will be withdrawn and a somewhat more competent but similarly loathsome nominee will replace him. Call it the Harriet Miers play.
-
If a Ted Olson nomination pisses off Joe Conason THAT much...
...then I am all for it.
This is why this President was elected. To appoint a Roberts, and an Alito, to the Supreme Court, and to appoint a Ted Olson to Justice. Don't like it? Get yourself a different President in 2008.
-
Acting and recess appointment?
Can't Bush appoint him as acting AG until the appointment is ratified by the Senate, then, if the nomination procedure is proven too difficult simply appoint him as a recess appointment once Congress goes into recess?
And can't Congress prevent recess appointment by technically not going into recess, but appointing one or a few senators to man the fort until the rest return from vacation or whatever? I seem to recall the Republicans doing that during the Clinton years; it was Senator John Warner, I believe, who manned the fort because he happened to live in the area.
-
Sure He Will
He nominates Olson and that's all anyone in the media talks about for a month or more. War takes a back seat. Democrats take a (further) back seat. The megalomania of the extended campaign season will grind to a halt. Congress becomes mired in the quagmire of extended inquisitional hearings. Republicans will tear the shirts from their chests in every session, demanding to know why Democrats are betraying Americans by denying them the fine legal mind of Ted "Killer" Olson. Dig it: Olson's wife died on 9/11. "How dare you besmirch the memory of her honorable sacrifice!" the rightwing pundits will cry. (Nevermind that Olson swiftly remarried.) Anne Coulter will suggest that liberals hate 9/11 victims. The blogs will be ablaze with it. It will be a big party. Bush loves a party. Loves 'em.
-
Attorney General
If Ted Olsen can't be confirmed perhaps Bush can next nominate Ken Starr for Attorney General....This would allow Fox News and the right wing talking heads to refer to him as "Judge" Starr and also shoe pictures of Hillary going into court to testify.
If Starr is not available how about Bill Belichek?
-
The very first question
the Judiciary Committee should ask Ted Olson is "Are there any circumstances in which the president is above the law?" If he answers that question in the same way as Gonzo (i.e., like a sniveling, evasive, sycophantic weasel), Leahy should bang the gavel and say "Thanks for playing, Ted. We have some lovely parting gifts for you. Next!"
It should be made abundantly clear from the outset that any nominee who is evasive and refuses to answer direct and simple questions will never make it to the Senate floor for a vote.