ALL eight Democrats on the panel voted against the pig, Gonzales:.

Senate Panel Approves Gonzales on a Party-Line Vote
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: January 27, 2005

ASHINGTON, Jan. 26 - The Senate Judiciary Committee, divided along party lines over questions of torture and accountability, voted 10 to 8 on Wednesday in favor of Alberto R. Gonzales's nomination as the nation's 80th attorney general.

The vote was much closer than expected, as all eight Democrats on the panel voted against Mr. Gonzales. Several Democrats who had indicated their support for Mr. Gonzales when President Bush first nominated him in November called Mr. Gonzales on Tuesday to say they would oppose him.
Democrats accused Mr. Gonzales of being evasive and "arrogant" in explaining the Bush administration's stance on the treatment of prisoners in the fight against terrorism. But his Republican defenders lauded him as a man of integrity and keen intellect whose Horatio Alger-like story - rising from poverty as the son of migrant workers in Texas - made him suited to become the nation's first Hispanic attorney general.

No Republicans have indicated any wavering in their support, and a Democratic senator who spoke on the condition of anonymity said it was very unlikely that the Democrats would seek to stall the vote on Mr. Gonzales through a filibuster. Democrats are eager to save their political ammunition for the expected fight over future Supreme Court vacancies.

But the Judiciary Committee's narrow endorsement, a day after many Democrats attacked Condoleezza Rice on the Senate floor over her nomination for secretary of state, signaled the minority party's willingness to do battle with the White House over another high-profile nomination, and Republicans acknowledged their disappointment over the strong show of opposition.

One by one, the eight Democrats at the committee meeting attacked Mr. Gonzales's record at the White House, saying he had devised policies that led to prisoner abuses in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Mr. Gonzales was too much of a "blind loyalist" for Mr. Bush to be an independent attorney general.
Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, surprised some colleagues by voting against the nomination. Mr. Feingold, the only Democrat on the committee in 2001 to vote in support of John Ashcroft's nomination as attorney general, had traditionally given the president broad deference to pick cabinet secretaries. But like other Democrats, Mr. Feingold said he found Mr. Gonzales's testimony at his confirmation hearing earlier this month "deeply disappointing" and said his actions at the White House on torture policies called into question "his commitment to the rule of law."

"Time after time," Mr. Feingold said, "Judge Gonzales has been a key participant in developing secret legal theories to justify policies that, as they have become public, have tarnished our nation's international reputation."
Democrats continued to press for White House notes or documents that might shed light on Mr. Gonzales's role in developing a Justice Department opinion in 2002 - since disavowed - that gave a narrow definition of torture. A search by the White House last week produced no such records, officials said on Wednesday.


Carl Hulse contributed reporting for this article.
FULL ARTCLE:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/politics/27gonzales.html

I know it's not going to be filibustered, but it's a unified step in the right direction. Keep it up, Dems!

"He said the vote could undercut Mr. Gonzales's strength as attorney general..."

We need to let them know WE SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION VOTES!

Biden voted against Gonzalez, so did Feingold. Does that get them partly out of the doghouse?

that isint right

Unless it isn't current. I've been having a wee bit o troubles finding the role call vote. Which Dem abstained?

-Hoot

to me. ;)

-Hoot

Well, he's as mainline as you can get. I assume that means the party is making a stand on torture boy.

These type of symbolic demonstrations are important. If for no other reason than to illustrate how isolated the pubs are. Being in the majority they're going to be able to ram a lot of crap through anyway, but it is vitally important for Democrats to stand up and say "hell no, not with my help!"

No mandate, no fig leaf of sham bi-partisanship, let the pubs drive the train right off the cliff all on their own. That way come next election the Democrats can say "you see that big mess? We didn't have any part of it."

...their support of war criminal and big-time liar Rice was despicable.

And, that they must not support torture-boy or they will not be re-elected.

We The People will NEVER FORGET.

And, in case you missed it, please be sure to view what I call "an enduring american legacy: the children of Iraq":

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/01467.htm (spread it far and wide: and understand as you look at each of these images you are looking straight at the consequences of OUR FAILED, INVALID, CORRUPT AMERICAN ELECTION SYSTEM -- just in case someone wants to question the relevancy of this post).


Peace.

BE THE BUSH OPPOSITION; 24/7 -- ANYONE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT NOW.........:grr:

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

Thursday, January 27, 2005 · Last updated 3:47 a.m. PT

Cantwell to vote against confirmation of Gonzales

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SEATTLE -- Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said Thursday she will vote against the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general because of his legal advice on torture and refusal to recuse himself from matters involving Enron Corp." (more at link)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer/ap.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Cantwell%20Gonzales

Our representatives are listening, everyone


TBO;24/7

You may need to re-listen to this hearing at C-Span's website on line to hear the remarks of each of these Senators.

Feinstein earnestly expressed intention to put forward her agenda and a legislation proposal to enact new laws governing how prisoners are treated to deal with today's "enemies" of "non-states".

Having paid a little attention to Feinstein's position on this 'war on terror', I read this to mean, that we SHOULD have special laws on the books giving the military, 'homeland security authorities' black ops etc, and intelligence special authority and immunity to apply torture to "enemy combatant" and detainee suspects.

Schumer admitted that he was fully prepared to support the nomination of Gonzalez, but changed his mind only since his appearance in committee hearing.

Huh? He was prepared to support Gonzalez's nomination, despite Abu Graib and Gonzalez's now infamous torture memo? Not to mention the what's happening in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Jordan, Egypt and other secret non disclosed locations outside of the United States where we are engaged in torturing prisoners?

I wouldn't thank these people. They were under enormous pressure from their own constituents to take a tough stand in opposition to this nomination. It wasn't their own personal choice.

This should be considered a huge RED FLAG people. Both Feinstein and Schumer, fully support the policies this administration has taken on this issue, they only opposed it because of the level of opposition from citizen groups, organizations and their own constituents.

Mark my words, pay very close attention to the legislation these two people intend to enact into law, and did anyone catch Feinstein's eagerness to support tort reform laws that this congress intends to pass shortly? Read that as embracing Corporate FASCISM.

Schumer loudly and boldly embraced the notion of implementing "Brave New World" legislation. Didn't that send chilling signals to anyone else hearing this?

IMO, these people are just as dangerous as the Bush Administration cabinet and they're dressed in Liberal sheep's clothing!

Please do not support the direction they intend to take!

Pay very close attention to what they intend to introduce after the confirmation hearings are over.

All you had to do was vote against and grant your own wish there Senator.

-Hoot

.

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

We need an atty. general who is going to uphold THE LAW OF THE LAND!! Haven't they seen the damage that Asskrack did as atty. general? No investigations of any merit were allowed. If Gonzales is atty. general, then the Plame outing grand jury will likely be canned or sidelined. There are investigations that need to be done, that the justice dept. can AND WILL stop.

They need to keep Gonzales from being approved...they either need to get some of their repub buddies over to their side for the final vote, or they need to filibuster.

Gonzales as the head of "justice"????? There will be NO JUSTICE!!!

too scary.

Yes, we need to filibuster supreme court nominees, too, but the Dems should not shirk their duties to protect our justice department from the likes of Gonzales.

:kick::kick::kick:

for the Supreme Court nominations - they are for LIFE! The AG problem will go away when the rest of America wakes up from their propaganda-induced fear of the unknown.