Schumer, Feinstein Decide To Support Mukasey

Their reasoning? Mukasey would respect a law that bans waterboarding. Here’s Schumer justifying his position:

“I deeply oppose it,” Schumer said of waterboarding. “Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush, will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding.”

Here’s Feinstein doing the same:

This afternoon, I met with Judge Michael Mukasey one more time. I requested the meeting to address, in person, some of my concerns. The Judge made clear to me that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the President would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution.

The funny thing about these positions they’re taking is that it exposes the fact that the Democrats have been grandstanding on the waterboarding issue the entire them. They’ve been castigating the Bush administration for engaging in waterboarding for years, yet ever since the 2006 elections put them in the majority they’ve had the power to end the practice.
That’s right. While the President is the commander-in-chief of the military, it’s Congress that writes the rules for the military. Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “The Congress shall have Power… To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Traditionally, this has always meant that the various regulations and procedures the military abides by get approved by Congress. So if Congress wants to outlaw the practice of waterboarding, or any other interrogation technique for that matter, they can do it.
But apparently the Democrats care more about using waterboarding as a weapon against the Bush administration than actually stopping it, which would take nothing more than passing some legislation. Something they haven’t even tried to do.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array docdave

    And for the most part, our country benefits when the prez wins. God help us if the Dems get control of the White House and Congress next year.

  • Bill Mitchell

    And so Bush, the highly unpopular, lying, stupid, lame-duck President of these United States wins again.

    1. The economy and his tax cuts for the rich that will explode the deficit? – Bush wins.
    2. The surge doomed to failure? – Bush Wins.
    3. S-CHIP Socialized Medicine? – Bush wins.
    4. Early withdrawal from Iraq? – Bush wins.
    3. Mukasey? – Bush wins again…

    Considering what an incompetent dolt he is, he sure seems to win a lot. Considering how brilliant the Dems are, they seem to always lose.

    Odd that.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    The issue of the Mukasey nomination is a bit more complex than Bill Mitchell’s mordant sarcasm would suggest.

    Not surprising! Belly button lint is more complex than Bill!

  • Bill Mitchell

    Bat One,

    No one has ever referred to my sarcasm as “mordant” before. I think I’m in love! :)

  • Bat One

    The issue of the Mukasey nomination is a bit more complex than Bill Mitchell’s mordant sarcasm would suggest. Chuck Schumer is the guy who suggested Judge Mukasey’s name to the White House in the first place.

    Schumer wants badly to sit on the Supreme Court himself, and to get that nomination and the Senate approval he has to tone down the partisanship where other judicial nominations are concerned. To oppose Judge Mukasey after endorsing him to the White House makes Schumer look more like John Kerry than John Marshall.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development