Senate Vote Confirms Mukasey to be Attorney General (53-40)

Source: C-SPAN 2

Mukasey confirmed as attorney general

WASHINGTON - The Senate confirmed retired judge Michael Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night to replace Alberto Gonzales, who was forced from office in a scandal over his handling of the Justice Department.

Mukasey was confirmed as the nation's 81st attorney general after a sharp debate over his refusal to say whether the waterboarding interrogation technique is torture.

Republicans were solidly behind President Bush' nominee. Democrats said their votes were not so much for Mukasey as they were for restoring a leader to a Justice Department left adrift after Gonzales' resignation in September.

In the end, Mukasey was confirmed by a 53-40 vote.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071109/ap_on_go_co/senate_mukasey

at the time you posted or close to it? Just wanting to get the exact time when our Nation went for Torture.. but, not in my name.

Channel 5 in DC announced this at 11:30 p.m. EST. I couldn't find a link at Google news. I'm posting at 11:35 p.m. EST.

Wonder how long this one will last?

He will be the Attorney General until scandal drives him out of his office.

Nice euphemism for torture. Orwell is alive and well!

:puke:

we all knew he would be approved anyway..

It's Senate Kabuki Theater..:puke:

No repurcussions for Gonzo-shitfest
No special counsel to go after the idiots at the WH
No promises of NUTTIN...

just another flunkie to replace the other flunkie who got away and is making $40K a speech..such a punishment for Poor little Gonzo

:banghead:

That is not leadership.

Someone in another thread suggests the vote was scheduled in such a manner as to prevent their timely inclusion.

If they'd voted, it would be on the record. And that might come back to haunt them. So they found it easier not to vote.

and fly back to DC for the vote. Just couldn't fit it in their bizzy sked-yool to stand up against the apologists and enablers of torture and barbarism by our once-great nation.

for Presidential candidates not to break from their campaigns when the outcome of a vote is already known.

because you can be sure that the republicans and their political machine like Fox News would have used it in some way against them to swing moderates to the republican side in the upcoming election.

anytime i have a ballot in front of me, i will be writing in the name Al Gore for EVERY office on the ticket.

Edwards is in the Senate? Kucinich is in the Senate? I don't understand your point.

Also, the vote was 53-40, with six Democrats voting 'yes' and seven not voting. Even had every Democrat in the Senate voted 'no', it would have left the vote tied, with Cheney the tie-breaker.

and to answer your question- no, Al gore is NOT currently in the senate.

what you think edwards and kucinich have to do with it, escapes me...:shrug:

and it got out of committee thanks to ONE Democrat: Dianne Feinstein.

btw- how many repukes didn't vote along party lines? at least they know what unity means.

and this isn't the only issue they've caved on again and again-

the Dems won in November 2006 for ONE reason ONLY- to get us the hell out of iraq.

in what's billed as a two-party system, when the supposed "oppostion party" shows NO opposition- what's the alternative? :shrug:

"the party" is a joke, and i will no longer work or pay or vote to support them. not until they show me a reason why i should.

It's already been pointed out that it wasn't "the Democrats" as a party who got the vote out of committee.

sheesh...:eyes:

Didn't Schumer also vote for him?

(ie - filbuster). The problem is that it is likely that some who voted "no" might not have voted against cloture. (Alito had over 41 votes against him - I think 47, but the number willing to filibuster was in the 20s. The party leadership was against filibustering then - and likely was now.) I wish they would have tried, if only to make the point. I suspect that they didn't because it could hurt the Presidential candidates or maybe the leadership bought Schumer's argument that he was the best we could get. (OT: Schumer showed a huge amount of repressed anger at the people fighting this in his speech - ie the real Democrats.

vote against Mukasey.

:sarcasm:

What a useless bunch we have in the Senate...

but look at the Alito numbers - there were over 40 votes against him, but the number voting to filibuster was in the 20s. It suggests to me that the leadership bought Schumer's position that he was the best we could get. (Schumer recommended the guy and was extremely defensive and very obviously furious that he was being given such a hard time in his Senate speech.)

"Such an excuse. The Congress has better things to do. And of course Mukasey will ensure that they do just that. By ensuring that no criminal investigation of this administration goes anywhere but in the wastebasket. Along with the Constitution."

I think I'm going to be sick.

Does this mean we have to tone down the dissent? After all, the waterboarding might not just be reserved for people who 'might' know something about plans to reek havoc, but objectors to the neocon agenda as well!

I had a nice spicy Indian Chicken Tikka Masala for dinner.

But I'm good now... mike_c and Swamp Rat got me feelin' better over here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2243155

:smoke:

:hi:

If I didn't show up for my job because I was too busy looking for another job what would happen?

Source: BBC News

The US Senate has confirmed Michael Mukasey as the new attorney general.
The vote came despite misgivings from some senators who were unhappy at his answers over what constituted torture in the questioning of terror suspects.

Mr Mukasey refused to be drawn into a condemnation of so-called waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique.

The vote was carried by 53 to 40 in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and Mr Mukasey will replace Alberto Gonzalez.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/default.stm

---

If this is a duplicate please move it.

Preemptive capitulation at its finest.

Because doing the job you were elected to do is just too hard.

My concern is that he could at some point be the majority leader. It is clearly the path he is on.

Source: Washington Post

The Senate late Thursday narrowly confirmed former federal Judge Michael Mukasey as the 81st attorney general, giving the nominee the lowest level of congressional support of any Justice Department leader in the past half-century.

The 53-40 vote came after more than four hours of impassioned floor debate, and reflected an effort by Democrats to register their displeasure with Bush administration policies on torture and the boundaries of presidential power.

Seven senators, including those running for president, did not vote.

The final tally gave Mukasey the fewest "yes" votes for any attorney general since 1952, just weeks after lawmakers of both parties had predicted his easy confirmation.

(snip)

"This is the only chance we have," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Other Democrats who voted for confirmation were Sens. Charles Schumer of New York, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Thomas Carper of Delaware, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.


Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004003595_mukasey09.html

No surprise there. Am I supposed to believe DiFi bought that bullshit about this being the only chance we get to have an atty general in this "time of war"? Fuckin' PUH-LEEEEEZE

Led by Chuckie "Taxes are for the little people" Schumer.

don't get it, so it SHOULD BE bye, bye.

Sadly it will not happen, thats America for ya.

Now bush does not have to worry about things like special prosecutors and such. And the Democrats are off the hook.

Does it mean that it frees Mukasey from being responsive to the 40? Does it free him from upholding the constitution, while he continues the destructive patterns of behavior and decision making of Ashcroft and Gonzolas? Or does it send him a signal that change is required?

I don't know enough about him, nor have such issues been searched in detail. In some respects, the concentration on the issue of waterboarding was a side issue. What is at issue is far more fundamental and critical - will he uphold the constitution vs. following his political bosses' orders?

::::::yawn::::::

I just keep this phrase on copy so I can paste it, over and over and over again.

It is, by far, the phrase that I use most in threads here at DU.

I hope and pray that I don't have to use it again after the 2008 election.

What do you expect from Lieberman supporters?

the rub my belly congress did it again.

From Sen Specter's (R-PA) floor speech last night IN FAVOR OF Judge Mukasey:

"Now, I do believe there were reasons Judge Mukasey did not express a judgment on waterboarding as being torture, although candidly it would have been my preference if he had done so, if he had agreed with my vote on the subject. But Judge Mukasey said in written responses that he believed he could not make that pronouncement without placing people at risk to be sued or perhaps even criminally prosecuted. We know a few weeks ago, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was in Paris at a time when people sought legal process against him. It was unclear whether it was a criminal procedure or a civil procedure. But we do know that many nations are exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction when they may consider conduct to be a violation of the law against humanity.

We know, for example, that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon was indicted, I believe it was in Belgium. They couldn't serve the warrant, but had he gone to Belgium, he would have been subject to that process. We know the case of Pinochet from Chile where extraterritorial jurisdiction was sought as to him. So that is a matter of some considerable import.

Professor Goldsmith wrote that from his experience as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel that members of the administration had expressed concerns that they might be subject to civil liability or even criminal liability if it was later determined that some of their conduct was illegal. So Judge Mukasey faced a situation where an expression of an opinion by him would put people at risk."

Unbelievable, even from Specter.

the war criminals in the administration.

n/t

There is indigation because the US has used water boarding on 3 people, one of the Mr Khalid Sheik Mohammad - planner of the 9/11 operation?

This is much ado folks.