Ted Olson would be the most rancid possible choice Bush coud make, which makes it very likely. If the Democrats allow that subverter of democracy who wipes his ass with the Constitution to become AG, I will never vote Democratic again.

...it is highly unlikely that Bush will nominate him for AG.

But let's give "The Decider" the benefit of the doubt and assume it's true. What is really interesting is that politicians on the right appear to be lining up opposition here. Makes you wonder two things: (1) Just what is an acceptable legal view for these fascists?; and (2) whatever happened to good old "law and order" conservatism in this country?

Expect another far-right, sycophantic, Unitary Executive-worshipping toadie -- and without a public paper trail subject to examination. Someone with the Cheney / Addington seal of approval.

Bush has never, and will never, nominate a qualified, independent appointee to head any federal agency -- much less one as important politically as the DoJ.

I assume you didn't litigate any cases before Mukasey. Is there any litigation reputation material you think sufficiently reliable to pass along? As you know, the NYC bar tends to have a well-established "feel" for a judge's sensibilities.

I know very well how the Circuits are composed. I also know that your oracle-like Second Circuit split 2 to 1 on the Padilla case. And that the bare majority was Judge Beverly Pooler, a Hillary Clinton liberal and Clinton era appointee, and Judge Barrington D. ("Danny") Parker, who is a very interesting case. Parker is, I presume, a Democrat, who was appointed to the Federal Bench in the first instance by Clinton. Remarkably, he was appointed to the Circuit by President George W. Bush. (You remember him, don't you? The guy who only appoints right-wing ideolougues?)

The dissenter was Judge Richard Wesley, who is also a Bush appointee and a Republican, but who was ardently supported for nomination by, uh, Chuck Schumer, (D-Liberalism).

There, Glenn. You learned something today. You're welcome.

My fear is that this is a feint, some sort of misdirection to make us think Bush would ever make a wise decision. He hasn't ever, not in politricks, and certainly not in business.

And Elephantman (sorry about your condition), the 4th Circuit may have some competition from some other conservative districts, but is beyond all doubt the redoubt of the most antediluvian, knuckle-dragging, rock-hard jurists in the country.

No one, including Hon. Michael Mukasey, should even be considered for the vacant AG post until they answer one question, posed under oath:

As attorney general, will you enforce the law; specifically, George Bush's admitted violations of Title 50 US Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1800 et seq., i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which makes any warrantless wiretap a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000.00 fine? For each wiretap. 1,000 wiretaps = 5,000 years in prison and a $10,000,000.00 fine.

Yes or no?

I assume you didn't litigate any cases before Mukasey. Is there any litigation reputation material you think sufficiently reliable to pass along? As you know, the NYC bar tends to have a well-established "feel" for a judge's sensibilities.

Judge Mukasey is one of the few SDNY judges before whom I never appeared. But he is very well-regarded in the NY legal community as someone who is smart, fair, reasonable, etc. I'm sure there are exceptions and you could find lawyers to complain about him. Most judges have moments (at least) of tyrannical outbursts and flights of irrational stupidity. It probably comes with the toxic combination of absolute power over a tiny feifdom and lifetime tenure. But as federal judges go, he is well-regarded among the lawyers who practice in the NY federal courts.

There are lawyer surveys of judges I'm sure you can find online, though they tend to be fairly useless. And you can tell a lot about a judge by how they conduct themselves in the most difficult cases and by the rulings they issue.

Mukasey sounds to me like the kind of judge someone accused of demonstrating against the junta in a banana republic would like to get. Instead of sentencing him to be thrown, covered in his own blood, in a crocodile infested pond, the fair minded judge would sentence him to be executed by a firing squad.

Elephantman:

I'm a little concerned by the nice things that Schumer and Glenn Greenwald say about Mukasey, but if Bill Kristol endorses Mukasey, then I'd support his nomination.

Thanks for the weekend illustration of how an authoritarian follower "thinks" -- "if Bill Kristol endorses Mukasey, then I'd support his nomination."

No need to think for yourself. If Bill Kristol says it, you follow.

And isn't it funny how the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is cited by Glenn as a source of wisdom criticizing Judge Mukasey? But the Mukasey-supporting Fourth Circuit is "far right"?

Court of appeals decisions are determined by three-judge panels. It is just fact that the three-judge panel chosen for that Fourth Circuit case was comprised of some of the further right judicial ideologues. Even right-wing legal advocates would say so.

Having said that, the notion that a U.S. President can't incarcerate U.S. citizens seized on U.S. soil without a trial isn't really a matter of whether someone believes in liberal or conservative ideology. It is a matter of whether someone believes in the basic American constitutional framework. That's why the administration made sure the Supreme Court wouldn't rule on that question.

-- GlennGreenwald

Wrong again, Glenn. It has nothing to do with Bill Kristol telling me what to think. ("Authoritarianism"? He's a magazine editor!) Before typing, I just happened to see Kristol on Fox, making a very thoughtful case that social-conservative issues are no longer of any pressing importance for the administration, and that FISA issues will be the major focus of the balance of the AG's time in office, whoever is appointed. Therefore, Mukasey is an even better pick than Ted Olson, to fulfill that mission. I tend to agree. Ted Olsosn was an attractive choice if for no other reason than that he appeared to infuriate Joe Conason. I was hoping that suffering through a year of Ted Olson as AG might shorten Joe's lifespan by some factor. But I am willing to give up that hope for the good of the country, which would clearly be served by a strong and solid defense of the Bush-era expansion of effective anti-terrorism tools under FISA.