The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Monday, August 27, 2007
About that vacant AG position: it's time to hire a "Terminator"
Robert Bork is worried about the Gonzalez resignation. I will admit that this could be a big problem as Bork suggests--but only if Bush names a weak candidate or someone who will agree to crater and to allow a Special Prosecutor investigate the Administration for the rest of the term; surely the President would not be that dumb. I rather prefer Hugh Hewitt's approach: name someone the Democrats aren't wild about--but someone above reproach. Above all the candidate needs to be able to articulate in front of the klieg lights and the Nation the sound Constitutional basis for all of the so-called "controversial" positions that Alberto Gonzalez took; here are some key objectives that the new nominee will need to pull off:
Even if the Senate won't confirm him, the bottom line is that the President can appoint him for good during any Congressional recess, and there isn't a damn thing the Dems can do about it.
If the President will show some cajones on this one and if he picks the right guy, I think he could turn this resignation into a dramatic turnaround, while simultaneously getting prime time to sell his positions to the public. America loves a President who stands strong; they hate Presidents who perpetually allow themselves to be blown around by any wind.
As for names: Andy McCarthy wouldn't be bad; not bad at all. He meets all of the above criteria...
It shoud not be any Conservative on any appeals court--that would only create another appellate judicial vacancy that the Senate will filibuster rather than allow another Strict Constitutionalist to be appointed. Don't go there, we need those appelate judges.
Ted Olsen? Maybe. He definitely would command respect. But he will need to be at the top of his game.
It should not be a Bush confidante--he needs to have the appearance of independance. It should not be Estrada.
One of the appeals court nominees that the Senate is filibustering? Perhaps, except whoever it is would be unlikely to get confirmed for the AG either. It would only be worth it if the judge was a bad-ass communication superstar. The hearings would be bloody and confrontational (but that might be a good thing...see above discussion)--and then the Prez could appoint him anyway as a recess appointment.
It is going to be interesting.
- Articulate and argue the Constitutional basis for the President to hire and fire any damn US Attorney he pleases, for political reasons, personal reasons, or even if the President does/does not like their cologne. It is the perogative of the Executive to hire/fire, no oversight, case closed, next in line, please....
- Articulate and argue he Constitutional basis for the Executive to undertake extraordinary measures for National Security during wartime, including a history of all the details of all the other Presidents who have taken similar action on behalf of the country; these include Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, yada yada...
- Articulate the fact that the FISA law is outdated and needs to reflect today's technological realities; but in the meantime--with the threat of nuclear and bioterror greater than it ever has been; with the threat of a regional war in the Middle East including Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and Israel--the Executive Branch needs to be able to determine what the terrorists and our enemies are up to, to the extent technologically possible. Period. Come down on the side of defending the nation and let the Democrats argue against that.
- Take the Federalist/conservative Constitutionalist approach to any and all matters that come up in the hearings and defend them vigorously.
- The bottom line is that these issues need to be placed front and center in front of the electorate, so that by the time the elections actually come around, the people understand with clarity the President's positions and the valid reasons for them. The hearings would be a golden opportunity to do that.
Even if the Senate won't confirm him, the bottom line is that the President can appoint him for good during any Congressional recess, and there isn't a damn thing the Dems can do about it.
If the President will show some cajones on this one and if he picks the right guy, I think he could turn this resignation into a dramatic turnaround, while simultaneously getting prime time to sell his positions to the public. America loves a President who stands strong; they hate Presidents who perpetually allow themselves to be blown around by any wind.
As for names: Andy McCarthy wouldn't be bad; not bad at all. He meets all of the above criteria...
It shoud not be any Conservative on any appeals court--that would only create another appellate judicial vacancy that the Senate will filibuster rather than allow another Strict Constitutionalist to be appointed. Don't go there, we need those appelate judges.
Ted Olsen? Maybe. He definitely would command respect. But he will need to be at the top of his game.
It should not be a Bush confidante--he needs to have the appearance of independance. It should not be Estrada.
One of the appeals court nominees that the Senate is filibustering? Perhaps, except whoever it is would be unlikely to get confirmed for the AG either. It would only be worth it if the judge was a bad-ass communication superstar. The hearings would be bloody and confrontational (but that might be a good thing...see above discussion)--and then the Prez could appoint him anyway as a recess appointment.
It is going to be interesting.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department, US Senate
