Equal opportunity is one of our nation's most valuable national assets.
On September 27, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General reinvigorated our nation's commitment to opportunity for all people by releasing a memorandum adopting The Opportunity Agenda's ongoing policy recommendations for the economic recovery.
To comply with civil rights requirements prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability, and gender in federally funded programs, the Attorney General stated that federal agencies should consider:
Testifying to the House Judiciary Committee today, Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated his support for civilian trials for suspected terrorists and emphasized that Miranda warnings do not prevent suspects from talking. But he also repeated his statement, first made last Sunday, that the "public safety exception" to the Miranda rule should be "modernized" and "clarified" - although he never explained what's wrong with the Supreme Court rule as it stands now.
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee today urged Attorney General Eric Holder to stick to his initial determination that the alleged 9/11 plotters should be tried in civilian court, and not bow to partisan politics on what should be a legal determination.
I have a friend who just moved to Wisconsin. I told her she is so lucky -- despite the snow, despite the cold, despite the relatively sparse population where they are now living, despite the cabin fever in the winter -- she is so lucky, because she has Russ Feingold as her Senator. She agreed.
How few politicians we have on a national level who are as consistently principled as Russ Feingold. So committed to fairness, justice. And truth. Principles before personalities. He has not caved to the charm of the ever-charming President Obama. He is taking that rare step, at least among the current crop of corrupt politicians in Congress, of continuing to pursue the principle, continuing to question, continuing to demand the Constitution be respected and the law be enforced.
What a shame that President Obama selected Eric Holder to be Attorney General. I don't know much about him, but what I hear just keeps getting worse. The DOJ is seemingly on the wrong side of every issue. Starting with their refusal to prosecute anyone, or conduct investigations, relating to war crimes, torture, murder by the Bush-Cheney administration, and refusal to investigate and prosecute the criminals on Wall Street who have looted and plundered our country. What Justice?
How fitting then that the esteemed Senator Feingold and the lackluster Attorney General Holder should come face to face last week on television, for the whole nation to see. My, Eric, you come across looking just like -- a BushMan! Arrogant, condescending, evasive, dishonest, sleazy. Contemptuous.
Does this AG believe, just like all the string of sleazy AGs from the Bush crowd believed, that they are above the law, that the president can do what he wants and the AG reports only to him, the law and the constitution be damned? This guy Holder looks like a BB shot into a steel barrel full of vegetable oil: he jumps, he bolts, he skids, he slides, he evades, he's back and forth and up and down, he's sleazy. And he refuses to answer the simple question, for which a simple answer is readily available. It could have been Cheney sitting there answering the question.
Question: You agree, don't you, that the warrantless wiretaps used by the Bush administration were illegal?
Answer: Well, it depends on what the meaning of "used" is, or what you mean by Bush, or whether you mean "used" like some think of that word, or in some other fashion. I mean it just depends. It's hard to say. It's confusing. Illegal? Is that what you asked? Well, who can say? I mean illegal -- that's a pretty big word, isn't it? Whose law? Your law? Somebody else's law? What law? Does it really matter, anyway? Can't we just look forward, not spend our time looking backwards. Can't we all just get along. Illegal? Is that the question? Well, I'm sure some might say it was unwise, or perhaps unknown, or uncertain, or undercover, or underling. But illegal?
What a sleazy con man this guy Holder appears to be.
Yes Eric, that was the question: do you agree the wiretaps were illegal? Because if you do, then why haven't you done anything to prosecute the Bush-Cheney people who have violated our rights? When should we expect your indictment to be filed, and who do you anticipate naming as a defendant. How about answering those questions, or are these simple constitutional issues just way beyond your legal understanding, as the chief law enforcement officer of the land? Remember the 4th Amendment? No warrant no wiretap. Remember that one?
Do you agree with Bush-Cheney that the Constitution is toilet paper, and you as the AG exist mostly to cover up and avoid and deceive and allow the wealthy and powerful to break the law and get away with it? That's my own personal expanded version of the question. I'm not nearly as polite as Senator Feingold.
Oh yeah: here's the answer. YES. YES THE WIRETAPS WERE ILLEGAL. YES THEY WERE A VIOLATION OF LAWS -- LOTS OF LAWS AND A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. THAT'S THE ANSWER. NOW DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. ENFORCE THE LAW. INDICT THE CRIMINALS. DO YOUR JOB.
It's going to be ugly to watch notions of postpartisanship die. What is going to be far worse is to watch it in the context of an economy losing 500,000 to 700,000 jobs a month until a stimulus kicks in. If Obama can't get Holder through, I hope he chooses an extremely liberal and aggressive Attorney General that will hold the GOP accountable for their crimes. It's obvious these guys are so far gone they won't even pretend to respect the popular will.
This is not a post about the relative merits of Eric Holder for the position of Attorney General. Nor is it about the ideological makeup of the administration officials Barack Obama introduced yesterday (parenthetically, while the group lacks in progressive leanings they are at least a diverse bunch, 3 of 6 female and 2 of 6 African American).
As I watched Obama unveil his national security team a jingle from childhood went through my mind:
"One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others By the time I finish my song?"
The one that didn't belong was Eric Holder. I'll explain below.
Written by DMI's Civil Justice Fellow, Kia Franklin.
He still has to undergo the formal vetting process, but Eric Holder looks to be Obama's AG pick. So, how will Holder hold up when it comes to civil justice? On TortDeform we've talked extensively about a Pro-Civil Justice Presidential Platform, but access to justice for every American requires leadership and hard work from more than just the President. "America's lawyer" and "top cop", the Attorney General, has perhaps the most important role in advancing policies that preserve Americans' cherished legal rights and strengthen their access to effective, fair civil courts.
We must pay close attention here. As former AGs John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales taught us so well, the AG has a critical role in protecting--or subverting--our cherished constitutional rights and protections. In the coming weeks as we learn more about his positions on various issues I'll do my best to keep you updated.
In the mean time, three quick things worth considering are: Holder's past efforts to advance equal access to justice; his ties to the progressive-leaning constitutional law group, American Constitution Society; and some insights from the balanced analysis of Glenn Greenwald at Salon. More below the fold.
Next up in the series on the upcoming Obama cabinet: Who would make the best Attorney General? For me, that would be the person best qualified to dismantle the so-called PATRIOT act. For others, it may be someone motivated to bring at least a few of the players from the current Bush White House to justice.
Myself, I wouldn't mind a surprise here - say someone like WA Gov Christine Gregoire. She was the lead AG in the first of the major tobacco "settlements".
To some extent, every D state AG might be considered. So I can't have an unlimited list. The poll includes an option for "Someone Else," plus a request to specify in the comments.
Once again, poll and brief description of each candidate on the flip. I evaluate each option as best I can. (I had to research the credentials of a few.) I trust others will add more data, including why others would be great or awful. I may have missed a few excellent candidates, so please feel free to add your own.
"No," Edwards said in no uncertain terms on NBC's the Today show when asked about the possibility. "Won't happen....It's just not something I am interested in."
As for another position in an Obama administration, specifically Attorney General, Edwards was decidedly more coy.
"I don't really want to get involved in that speculation," he said. "Right now we have to focus on getting Barack Obama elected to President of the United States, then we'll worry about those things."
Edwards seems like a great pick for VP. While there were some who thought he was overly messianic in his anti-corporate campaign rhetoric (people like positive messages), that strikes me as exactly the attitude we need from an Attorney General.
Also, shouldn't the Attorney General be an elected position? It strikes me that we should have independent law enforcement, not a toady of the executive. Given the problems with FISA and the US Attorney scandals over the past two years, really this should be a no-brainer. Perhaps we should also have an elected position at the Department of the Treasury, or the GAO, since we should have independent oversight of the books, too.
Here's a letter from John Ashcroft, James Comey, Jeff Goldsmith and Phil Philben.
For all of these reasons, we encourage the Committee to approve the carrier immunity provision as a fair, just, and equitable result that properly promotes a policy of encouraging the private sector to cooperate with the intelligence community.
According to lobbying disclosure reports as well as interviews, the new AT&T's outside lobbying firms include the Ashcroft Group, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Cassidy, DC Navigators, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Ogilvy Government Relations and Quinn Gillespie & Associates, among others.
Telecom companies own DC, from Al Wynn to Jay Rockefeller John Ashcroft. It's just that simple.
Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning.
When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive. As noted by NPR, Mukasey "danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is." "If it amounts to torture," Mukasey said carefully, "then it is not constitutional."
Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates? Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?
Confirmation hearings for President Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, brought promises by the nominee to "block political meddling at the Justice Department," and the expectation by senators that the Justice Department will regain public confidence, which was shaken by he U.S. attorney scandal. Questions from senators on both sides of the aisle stressed the need for the Justice Department to be independent of partisan political interests of the President. Of particular interest to voting rights advocates is finding Mukasey's approach to the enforcement of voting rights laws in the wake of revelations about the DOJ's use of US Attorneys and the Voting Section to pursue partisan voter suppression tactics.
"I'm glad President Bush listened to Congress and put aside his plan to replace Alberto Gonzales with another partisan Administration insider. Judge Mukasey has strong professional credentials and a reputation for independence. A man who spent 18 years on the federal bench surely understands the importance of checks and balances and knows how to say no to the President when he oversteps the Constitution.
"But there should be no rush to judgment. The Senate Judiciary Committee must carefully examine Judge Mukasey's views on the complex legal challenges facing the nation. I look forward to meeting Judge Mukasey, and I will work with Chairman Leahy to ensure a full airing of the issues presented by his nomination."
Through weeks of quiet deliberation, Bush abandoned the confrontational pronouncements to which Congress has grown accustomed. Instead, White House counsel Fred Fielding reached out to Democrats, including Bush's constant opponent Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who had previously recommended Mukasey as a Supreme Court nominee. Schumer and Fielding went so far as to discuss names, and Mukasey's came up. "We're in an alternate universe," says one Senate aide, "Charles Schumer saying something nice about a guy used to be the kiss of death."
I am feeling a strong sense of Harriet Miers déjà vu with this nomination, though without the obvious cronyism and thus the obvious path to denying his nomination. Back then, Reid also came out with pre-emptive praise of Miers, who he obviously wanted to see confirmed (and, after Alito, I think we all wish she had been). However, Miers was defeated with a combination of left-wing mockery (see Harriet Miers's blog!!!) and right-wing ideological opposition. Even before that, both sides struck a huge blow against her confirmation early on, and made their later arguments more salient, because they were both saying the same thing on the day of her nomination: cronyism. The negative conventional wisdom on Miers was defined in the first twenty-four hours after her nomination, which is largely the case for all nominees, because both Democrats and Republicans were saying the same thing about her. This time around, I'm not seeing any unified negative message coming from both the left and the right. I think Glenn Greenwald sums this up nicely:
There is no question that Judge Mukasey, a Reagan appointee who served as the Chief Judge for the Southern District of New York before retiring recently, is close to the far right on the judicial spectrum. He undoubtedly holds many legal and political views which most Democrats would find objectionable, perhaps even intolerable. But that will be true of any nominee Bush selects, and it is true of the current Acting Attorney General, Paul Clement, who will remain in place if no nominee is confirmed.(…)
ut any such happiness proved to be unwarranted. Judge Mukasey repeatedly defied the demands of the Bush administration, ruled against them, excoriated them on multiple occasions for failing to comply with his legally issued orders, and ruled that Padilla was entitled to contest the factual claims of the government and to have access to lawyers. He issued these rulings in 2002 and 2003, when virtually nobody was defying the Bush administration on anything, let alone on assertions of executive power to combat the Terrorists. And he made these rulings in the face of what was became the standard Bush claim that unless there was complete acquiescence to all claimed powers by the President, a Terrorist attack would occur and the blood would be on the hands of those who impeded the President.
So, basically, Mukasey is a right-winger, but everyone they nominate will be a right-winger, and at least Mukcasey stuck it to the Bush administration by upholding legal standard in the Padilla case. This will result in mixed messaging coming from both the left and the right, and as such no negative conventional wisdom will be formed around Mukcasey.
Unless there is some sort of smoking gun or major skeleton found in Mukcasey's closet, it looks like his nomination will be a done deal. These battles are frequently won and lost in the first twenty-four hours, and right now it looks like he is winning handily.
In his response to the resignation of AG Alberto Gonzales today, President Bush intends to declare a recess appointment of himself as Attorney General of the United States.
Asked why he would take such a strange course of action, he explained that even having a wingnut like Ashcroft as AG meant he wouldn't ALWAYS get what he wanted. He then explained that the problem with nominating someone incompetent like Gonzales to heed his every word at justice is that incompetent people tend to be incompetent, which sometimes gets them into trouble.
He then went on to explain that he trusted himself best to uphold his laws, and if you don't you're probably a terrorist. He then cited executive privileged without making it clear what he was claiming executive privilege from.
More breaking coverage and reactions below the fold.
STATE BLOGS
