From your post: "Judge Mukasey's respect for the Constitution and the rule of law should not be overstated. As part of his ruling that Padilla was entitled to counsel and to contest the factual accusations against him, Mukasey also ruled, very dubiously, that President Bush had the authority to detain American citizens, even those detained on U.S. soil, as "enemy combatants," and that they need not be charged with any crimes. *He thus rejected Padilla's claim that, as a U.S. citizen, the Constitution barred his incarceration without criminal charges being brought and a conviction obtained in a court of law.*"

While I respect Judge Mukaseys' defense of Due Process, I can't help but wonder about the primise upon which it is based?

It seems to me Judge Mukasey is saying, in effect, U.S. citizens have the constitutional right to counsel/due process to express their 'claims', but Executive 'Authority', certainly in matters of national security, effectively over-rules that fundamental constitutional right?

As to your question: how do I think the next AJ should be dicidered?

In deference to reality: I hope the next AJ is chosen well. Someone who respects the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded.

In my opinion, Judge Mukasey is not that person...based on what I have read here today. I will agree, realistically, he may be the least worst option available at this time.

I would prefer Mukasey over the current acting AJ.

I hope this answered your questions and provided some explanation as to why I would oppose Judge Mukasey based on the information we are discussing?

regards,

bah.

Glenn, Thanks for all do to keep us informed. Judge Mukasey does seem to want to do what is right. He certainly isn't a rubber stamp for Bush/Cheney policies. I'd like you to find out all you can on Chuck Todd the relatively new NBC political news director. If my memory serves me he was until last year a Republican talking head that was on all the political roundtables. I'm curious about his appointment to this important post. It doesn't seem kosher to me.

Thank you GG for this very informative view. Seems fair to say that Mukasey would be far better than our past two AGs.

But still not nearly good enough. Not because he is conservative, and not because he would be insufficiently independent. I think he would pass the minimal standard on the latter, based on your piece.

But his apparent belief that the president can arrest and incarcerate without charge is hopefully a deal-breaker. Didn't Gonzales say that Habeas was not affirmatively guaranteed in US law--and doesn't Mukasey's opinion appear to be along the same lines?

If he is the nominee, and this is indeed his position, and if congress asks about it, and if he happens to give them a straight answer, and if they actually care about habeas, then I hope congress will reject him. I count four "ifs" above. That's a lot.

There are other considerations than judicial record

This is an excellent point, and another good thing for the Democrats in Congress to explore. Is he closely affiliated with any borderline "Law Schools," for instance? Where have his law clerks come from? Will he put a 24-year old in charge of discipline?

Criminy. When did it become The Rule that Bush nominees have to be considered and/or accepted? Only Bush nominees. This is absurd.

Obviously Mukasey isn't as bad as some other political hack Bush and/or Cheney wanted to send up, but that doesn't mean the Congress, particularly the Senate, owes the President any consideration or deference whatsoever.

The problem isn't the putative appointee, the problem is the appointer.

I don't know why that has been so hard to grasp, really so impossible for the Democratic Senate leadership to understand at all. They act, always, as if the President's cabinet nominees are automatically due extreme deference and consideration. That's how we got the shameful atrocity of Abu G. They are due nothing. Their character or lack of it, their ideological positions, etc, is not the issue. The issue is the character of the one who makes the appointments, and that has been demonstrated (over and over and over again) to be... flawed.

So the Senate should not consider this man (or anyone else Bush nominates for any position requiring confirmation) at all.

Of course Chuck Schumer has already caved.

So, it's down to the lessor of evils Glenn?

That's how our system works. The President gets to appoint the Attorney General. If Congress refuses to confirm the nominee, then the current Acting Attorney General, Paul Clement, will remain as AG.

Thus, for people who live in reality, the choice is between the current Acting AG or the person who Bush nominates.

The best we can hope for is someone like Judge Mukasey who would lock a man up for no (known) reason, but would insist on his right to counsel?

This completely mischaracterizes his decision. He ruled the opposite of what you claim he ruled. He ruled that the administration cannot detain Americans "for no known reason" -- instead, they must offer some evidence for that reason and the defendant must have the opportunity to contest those reasons.

If Judge Mukasey actually believes that a president has the right to lock people up without any say (with or without counsel), Mukasey is not fit to be a citizen, much less to run the Justice department.

Then it's a good thing he doesn't believe that.

aside~ I disagree with Mr. Timber man. It's not for your 'tolerance for reality' that I read your commentaries, Glenn. I mostly read you because of your penchant for not compromising on the art of compromise (ie. The United States of America). Don't let me down.

Why don't you describe how you think the next AG is going to be chosen?

bah.

--

Accepting the fact that us “libs” will never get a nominee that we don’t have some reservations about and considering I am far from qualified on making legal judgments, I think we should keep in mind that the DOJ is a very large, dysfunctional, and morale deprived organization at his moment in its history. I believe we should look at leadership and management qualifications in addition to a nominee’s legal views.

We don’t need a DOJ run by deputies or lower level managers who allow political views to override legal justice. We need a tough leader who will watch over all aspects of the DOJ and who will select talented people for key posts who will help banish politics from the department and set up safe guards so that there is minimal chance for partisan politics to ever rule the department again. We need a leader who can communicate clearly, concisely and decisively with the media, congress, legal community, the White House and American people.

Let’s not focus too much on the legal although it is certainly extremely important.