It is interesting to me, that some Dems said they voted for Muskaskey because they "had no choice, it is better than being witout an AG for 14 months"

and my question was "huh?"



In other words- if they don't nominate this guy- there will be no guy.


From the quote inferred above, it was basically said 'we get this guy or no one at all"- which begs the question- OUTSIDE of this nomination issue- say, some far future nominee that we don't need to argue over at this point in history- but it does beg the question-


Is no nominee such a bad thing?

Or is it mandatory that we need or have to have an AG for a period of, say, a little over a year?

Would it cripple crime fighting or have some other bad effect overall on the average American citizen outside the political process?

I forgot who mentioned it on one of the news shows, but there is some thinking among Democrats, that if they didn't confirm Mukasey, Bush might appoint a much worse person on a recess basis.

Given his track record with such nominees, like John Bolton, there may be something to this.

I kinda want to get away from the debate directly over GW- we all know he sucks, yadda yadda- there is nothing positve anyone with any rational thought can say good about this administration- but the real intriguing question, from a smaller goverment point of view is- what is the real repurcussions with congress not appointing anyone, and the position going unfilled?

That was my whole point. If congress did not appoint anyone, and a recess apointment were made, the position would not go unfilled.

No explanation from those that believe we need to have an AG at all times?

Having an AG in place isn't all that important. There are enough capable people in the AG's office that someone could be acting AG indefinitely and few people would notice the difference.

This is what I am telling myself- but I am wondering if I am missing something here in his duties? I am not familiar enough with even how the office came into being in the first place- I don't recollect John Adams having problems with his AG appointments? (though, IIRC, there were still LOTS of issues over cabinent appointments to go over in the new goverment, and, I believe there were even duels, both political and otherwise, fought over this issue originally)

Do we even need to have an AG at all in the executive branch? They have had some real independence problems being so closely tied to the executive himself, and I wonder if the entire office is better suited to the judicial branch, as an additional check to executive power, that has so obviously grown way out of bounds, it has done this over time, but the GW administration has shown us all the faults with the lack of ENOUGH checks and balances on the presidency.

edited to add- did some research on the AG- here is the history- coming into being in 1789-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...ment_of_Justice

The Attorney General was initially a one-person, part-time job, established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, but this grew with the bureaucracy. At one time the Attorney General gave legal advice to the U.S. Congress as well as the President, but this had stopped by 1819 on account of the workload involved.

In 1867, the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, led by Congressman William Lawrence, conducted an inquiry into the creation of a "law department" headed by the Attorney General and composed of the various department solicitors and United States Attorneys. On February 19, 1868, Lawrence introduced a bill in Congress to create the Department of Justice. This first bill was unsuccessful, however, as Lawrence could not devote enough time to ensure its passage owing to his occupation with the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.

A second bill was introduced to Congress by Rhode Island Representative Thomas Jenckes on February 25, 1870, and both the Senate and House passed the bill. President Ulysses S. Grant then signed the bill into law on June 22, 1870. The Department of Justice officially began operations on July 1, 1870.

The bill, called the "Act to Establish the Department of Justice", did little to change the Attorney General's responsibilities, and his salary and tenure remained the same. The law did create a new office, that of Solicitor General, to supervise and conduct government litigation in the Supreme Court of the United States.

With the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1870, the Federal government in the U.S. began to take on some law enforcement responsibilities, with the Department of Justice tasked carry out these duties.[1]

In 1872, control of federal prisons was transferred to the new department, from the Department of Interior. New facilities were built, including the penitentiary at Leavenworth in 1895, and a facility for women located in West Virginia, at Alderson was established in 1924.[2]


Hmm, seems to be an office we don't need today at all- and was probably a mistake to make it beyond an advisor to the president and congress in scope.

It's the old "Better the devil we know than the devil we don't know" cliche'. Or, better to have some say in the process than no say in it. I was very pleased that Senator Levin voted against the appointment. I am more disposed to voting for the incumbents who represent my views and are not intimidated.

The country can run without an Attorney General in place, especially if the best the administration can come up with is a "yes man" to approve of unlawful/legally dicey maneuverings outside of the Constitution.

Water boarding not torture--really! They have all the "evidence" they need; they just don't care. They're ignoring Senator McCain and his firsthand experience; how disingenuous and dishonest!

Most people, even Democrats, think he will be a good AG. Of course he may not be as soft on crime etc. as the Dem left would like – but then oh well

Not the question- no, democrats would like someone to be TOUGH on crime- you know, where the worst crimes have occured in the US- that would be the white house

But the question is- what would happen with no AG? Total absence of one? Would crime run rampant because we don't have one?

Your usual dodge – Bush is responsible for everything bla bla – do you ever consider a serious answer CR rather than this worthless rhetoric?




Well apparently there are more than a few senior positions open at Justice and like any organization a leader in important. To bring in good people, fill positions, etc. etc.

Ted- I am wanting a responsible and independent AG that will prosecute this regime in good faith- i.e.- not be a lapdog for an evil regime. It isn't rhetoric- we simply have the most corrupt regime since Grant, and it needs to be investigated for real. Hasn't happened yet- tell you what- I will retract everything bad I have ever said about GW once there is a 100 million dollar investigation dealing with every business dealing, every statement he has made, every lie told, since he was born. In other words- to the level that they dealt with Clinton- no more, no less. If nothing comes out of that investigation, I will publically apologize and admit to being wrong about this fine upstanding first citizen.

In other words- I want somebody as independent of his boss, and will tell him to go put his head back where the sun don't shine, like Janet Reno did- remember- Janet was a life long republican prosecutor.

Quite frankly- GW is a complete coward for his appointments- a sniveling piece of fecal matter that is afraid to hire anything but "yes men" and handlers outside his admin. What does he have to fear from a life long democratic prosecutor, that isn't afraid to say " the buck stops here, you don't get a yes man on this one Mr President"

We need someone there that won't rubber stamp GW.

Okay Ted- then what happens when they go unfilled? We are not talking about personell at any level that actually fights crime, or prosecutes criminals, or does anything that thier absence would even be noticed for, well, years.

What does the AG do that is so all fired important that going unfilled would cause the bad guys to have some sort of field day?

Define “corrupt” for me CR. And then I will show you Dems that fit the profile.

Hasn't happened yet- tell you what- I will retract everything bad I have ever said about GW once there is a 100 million dollar investigation dealing with every business dealing, every statement he has made, every lie told, since he was born


Give me a break please. The current pork and corruption from the party that has “taken over” to “govern” is so sickening how can you say this with a straight face.

Lets go back and look at White Water – and how Hillary wormed her way out of it. Please get off the Bush is responsible for everything crap when you know the dems are no better and never will be.

Um, saying "the dems are bad" don't hold too much water with me- because I don't care- I believe the dems to be as corrupt, or at least completely spineless, for not, at the very least, forcing the issue of his corruption. Dems are just as corrupt- sure- but they aren't in the white house. the worst of what BC had even been accused of while in office, or out of office, pales in comparison to GWs corruption.

And I don't think I am asking for much when I ask for equal treatment of both Prez's here. I just want a rapidly partisan special prosecutor that has no parameters for the investigation, or at least, some stated at first, but then able to go into every aspect of the presidents life, from birth until today, and, well, at least 200 million dollar budget as well.

Why is that so much to ask? If they can't find anything on GW, or even no more than they found on Clinton- like, he lied about his cocaine use or something - I am cool with that- I will give him a "pass" once he has that kind of investigation and scrutiny.

Why is equal treatment for GW such a tough thing for the "character is an issue" types to deal with? Why do you expect more from Clinton than you do from GW?

As for the Dems- they are not my party either. I think they are equally bad- and, though Edwards and Obama are at least offering something new and fresh- the rest of them are just Gdumb lite for me. - I am certainly not "ra-raing" any of them.

1.) People say that having no leader is like having a body without a head; I say otherwise. The Attorney General [in most cases] does not carry a gun and is not involved in my neighborhood watch. The crime-fighting system in this nation was developed from the grassroots up, not Washington down. In economics, there is a trickle-down effect; but in crime-fighting, common trends in drugs, abuse, or other crimes come from community or state-level mandates anyway. The Attorney General is not as vital position as say, Secretary of State, because the Attorney General is an extra-Supreme Court authority on the Constitution and other laws which are probably being ignored by the current administration anyway, but I digress.

2.) See above.

3.) I would have to say the average American could not name the Attorney General prior to this confirmation process running the gauntlet in Congress. Even fewer could name the Attorney General of Clinton, Bush I, etc. Law and Order is more than just a television show; it's an entire institution unto itself that lives in the community. Government was established to secure both of these things, but when government starts to get disorderly, we know something's wrong with the whole process, not just the nomination of one man to one position.

I agree, to me, 99% of "getting the bad guys" happens at the local/state level (I don't want to get into the county thing and all the jurisdictions- but I am saying, from the state level down) .

The Fed cases have a much smaller case load that the state and various local jurisdictions.

I don't think there would even be a ripple felt anywhere in 99.9999999% of the country if the position was done away with completely.

It seems that, historically speaking in the last 50 years or so- the main job is to provide for cover when the Prez screws up- and that is really the last thing we need anymore.

Concerning both of this points, CR, thought you might find this exerpt from the Department of Justice website intersting:



[Bolding added by me for emphasis.]

Source

So, taking the official explanation and paraphrasing: The Attorney General has no function that the Supreme Court itself cannot fulfill since his primary function is offering advice and interpretation. His role has not even been paramount since the nation's founding and the Attorney General is redundant given the infastructure in place the non-federal arena of society.