G.O.P. Senators Preemptively Surrendering on Olson
There is an excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal today titled Borking Mr. Olson:
Not content with having run Attorney General Alberto Gonzales out of town, the Democratic posse on Capitol Hill is already gunning for his replacement–even before he’s nominated. More preposterous still, they’re disguising this pre-emptive borking as a plea for a “consensus” choice.
The breadth of this proposed condominium appears to be on the narrow side, however, running from Harry Reid to Pat Leahy, and perhaps stretching all the way to Chuck Schumer. Revealingly, this “consensus” doesn’t seem to have room for Ted Olson, the former Solicitor General who is merely one of America’s finest lawyers.
“Ted Olson will not be confirmed,” declares Senate Majority Leader Reid. “He’s a partisan, and the last thing we need as an Attorney General is a partisan.”
Are Senate Republicans going to take this lying down? You be the judge. From a recent AP story:
“It would be unfortunate to nominate someone who can’t be confirmed,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said earlier in the day.
. . . .
Earlier Wednesday, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a former Judiciary Committee chairman, said he talked with about 10 Democrats about Olson and that some made noises, if not outright threats, about blocking his nomination.
“I have been warned by a number of Democrats that they’re not going to let that happen,” Hatch said of an Olson confirmation. If the White House thinks Olson would sail through the Senate, Hatch said, “then they don’t understand the people up here.”
Yup: lying down. The article says Sessions and Hatch believe Olson would make it through, but their weak comments don’t inspire. It takes someone tough like Mitch McConnell to speak out against this putative Borking:
The bubbling controversy spilled onto the Senate floor Wednesday, when Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned that any holdup of the yet-to-be-named nominee would make hypocrites of Democrats who urged Bush to swiftly name Gonzales’ successor. Nomination to confirmation of new attorneys general has taken on average three weeks since the Carter administration, McConnell said.
If Democrats delay the nomination, McConnell warned, “they’ll show the American people that their concern for the department was insincere.”
The WSJ editors ask:
Is Mr. Reid saying that a Republican President can’t nominate any Republican as Attorney General? Or does he mean that President Bush can only nominate a certain kind of Republican–namely one who agrees with the Senate Democratic agenda, or short of that one who can be easily rolled?
That the latter is the real Democratic game was given away by none other than Mr. Leahy, whose own “partisanship” is so raw he can’t disguise it. Number Two on Mr. Leahy’s helpful “Checklist for Choosing the Next Attorney General” is this: “A proven track record of independence to ensure that he or she will act as an independent check on this Administration’s expansive claims of virtually unlimited executive power.”
Ironically, the AP story suggests that indeed Olson may be just such a person:
Olson has displayed some independence from Bush on at least one occasion. When former Deputy Attorney General James Comey was summoned to the White House in 2004 after refusing to sign off on Bush’s warrantless surveillance program, Olson accompanied Comey for support.
But that means nothing to the sanctimonious fraud Leahy.
Finally, the editors observe:
What’s really going on here is an attempt to intimidate Mr. Bush into nominating a candidate Democrats favor. This makes it all the more disappointing that Republican Senators have failed to speak up for Mr. Olson, with some joining the “consensus” chorus. We hope it isn’t because one or more of them are angling for the Attorney General job. Voters didn’t elect them to act as an echo of the Democrats, and they’re likely to stay in the minority for a long time–and deserve to–if they won’t stand up for the prerogatives of a President from their own party.
This is a veiled reference to (at a minimum) Orrin Hatch, as the AP article makes clear:
Hatch is another name mentioned. Several Senate colleagues have said they have spoken with Hatch about the prospect and predicted that the White House could turn to him if Bush can’t convince anyone else acceptable to Democrats to take the job.
Hatch has said he discussed the prospect with the White House but believes “it’s not going to happen.”
Is it a cheap shot by the editors? I don’t know, but I’m disappointed by Hatch’s comments, whatever motivated them.
I’d love to believe that this is all a head-feint, and that Bush still has Olson’s nomination in mind.
But it’s looking like Senators aren’t going to give him much support. The same folks who allowed the disastrous Gang of 14 deal to go through are caving on Olson before the fight even begins.
Lack of courage in individual battles is not a way to win the larger war.
it’s not just “advice”, it’s “advice and consent”.
assistant devil's advocate (9fff6f) — 9/14/2007 @ 6:27 amHow good is the acting Attorney General?
How long until a recess appointment?
How about Jeb Bush (if he’s a lawyer)? After all, how could the party that gave us John and Robert Kennedy disagree? [Don’t answer that… “easily”, in part because the party that gave us John and Robert Kennedy exists in name only.]
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:06 amAs Bernard Goldberg said “The left has lost it’s mind and the right has lost it’s nerve”
Budflygy (247e27) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:08 amIf the Republicans want to insure a future majority, they need to show the courage to stand up to the neighborhood bullies and if they do, my hunch the democrats will do what all cowards do, fold like a house of cards although certinly with a lot more noise.
these people will not act for consensus government no matter how many concessions they gain. Their only aim is absolute and total domination no matter what underhanded, slimey statements and actions are required.
Wow.
When I head Ted Olson was up, I thought that was excellent. Not due to political leanings – I’m a RINO type of guy. But Olson’s a brilliant, honorable man who would do the right things; we need that after the disaster that was Gonzalez. (That the WSJ could accuse the Dem’s of malfeasance in running Alberto out of town is…. well, not just the left can be agenda-driven.)
But Olson’s a guy who deserves a fight for him. He would make an excellent AG. If senators won’t stand up for him, that’s a damn shame.
–JRM
JRM (de6363) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:22 amI think you’re overreacting Patterico. No one questions Olson’s legal acumen. The problem, though, is that the DOJ has been hyper-politicized over the last few years (or at the very least is perceived to have been hyper politicized). Given the circumstances, I think it’s perfectly fair for the Democrats to insist on a nominee who has a reputation for being above partisanship, i.e., someone who is a conversative lawyer, not a Republican lawyer.
Olson, despite his obvious intelligence and talent, has a history of cheering pretty loudly for the Republican team. He’s a loyal Republican. There’s nothing wrong with that, but what the DOJ really needs right now is a non-political law-and-order type conservative, someone who isn’t interested in the whole political game. There are a lot of people out there of the Comey/Fitgerald mold who, while conservative, are much more interested in the law than they are in politics. That’s the kind of person the DOJ needs right now to help restore its reputation. Olson isn’t that person.
a lawyer (570d0d) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:30 amThere have actually been a lot of honorable people in the White House, Dept of Justice, Dept of Defense and the NSA who have had meaningful, thoughtful debates about the legal parameters of the war on terror. The media has deliberately ignored or misrepresented the character of those debates to maintain the fiction that the Bush administration is some sort of proto-fascist tyranny. It is just one of the many ways that the media have ill-served the american people.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:36 am“Ted Olson will not be confirmed,” declares Senate Majority Leader Reid. “He’s a partisan, and the last thing we need as an Attorney General is a partisan.”
Does Reid even listen to the fetid garbage that he spews or have a remote clue as to how he continually exposes his own hypocrisy?
But gosh, as a citizen it is so reassuring to know an elected official is objective, non-partisan and will wait UNTIL a candidate is nominated before making any decisions. Love the open mindedness of the liberal left.
Dana (b4a26c) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:44 amOff topic, Patterico, but do you have any comment about one of the stupidest judges in history, in your state, granting bail to Hsu:
He has six million in one checking account alone.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:53 amThe juxtaposition of the potential “Borking” of Ted Olson, while even conservatives cry foul over the “Borking” of Erwin Chemerinsky, is an interesting angle. Hugh Hewitt, as one example, seems too busy protesting Erwin’s bouncing to have managed a post on the Olson story…the irony being that Erwin himself constantly works to prevent conservatives from being confirmed as judges strictly because of their judicial philosophies or political beliefs. Republicans need to quit caving in and strongly assert the right of conservatives to hold positions of government influence, including Attorney General and judicial positions.
For anyone interested, I wrote on this topic here last night, and updated with a link to this Patterico story today.
Best wishes,
Laura (a27263) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:03 amLaura
Christoph, check Sutibly Flip‘s post (h/t The Belmont Club) on this.
Short answer, Colorado Law requires bail be given, except in some Capital Murder cases. The prosecutor upped his request from $4M to $50M, but the judge trimmed it back to $5M. Sound like Colorado law isn’t used to such high-roller bail jumpers.
Yeah, Hse isn’t in California yet, the prosecutor and judge are in Mesa County, Colorado. Hsu reportably has waived extradition, so he’ll be sent back to California soon.
LarryD (feb78b) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:15 amLaura makes a great point…I too have been marveling at the near-universal support for Chemerinsky from our supposedly fascist friends in the conservative legal blogging community. Power Line has chimed in, too.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but you know, some people have claimed that going on Hugh’s radio show is an act of apostasy for a liberal. Where are the liberals who should now be coming to his defense? Where are the liberals who should be supporting Ted Olson, and who should have supported Miguel Estrada and all the others? Patterico used the phrase “sanctimonious fraud” to describe Senator Leahy, which is too kind, really.
driver (faae10) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:19 amGuiliani has weighed in on the borking of Olson.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTZmNDM1MWQ3Y2ZjNjJlNjY3YWVmZTliMTgyNmY0NzM=
Dana (b4a26c) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:20 amI’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but you know, some people have claimed that going on Hugh’s radio show is an act of apostasy for a liberal. Where are the liberals who should now be coming to his defense? Where are the liberals who should be supporting Ted Olson, and who should have supported Miguel Estrada and all the others? Patterico used the phrase “sanctimonious fraud” to describe Senator Leahy, which is too kind, really.
Liberals aren’t honest decent people for God’s sake. Are you too stupid that you don’t understand that?
Ann Coulter is right. They — in large number — support putting needles in (their) babies’ brains and where they don’t support that, they support cutting them up with scalpels and using powerful vacuums.
These are terrible people.
Does it surprise you when they do not rise to a conservative’s defense when they’re being wronged as a conservative — a decent person — will rise to a liberal’s?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:23 amStupid? No. Just someone with a sense of irony who can comment on it without spluttering.
driver (faae10) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:27 am[…] hope the GOP senators aren’t really “preemptively surrendering on Olson,” as Patterico suggests. I hope they will prevent another borking of a good man, and if they […]
Merry Fitzmas for attorney general? at Amused Cynic (691ade) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:27 amdriver… it wasn’t literal. Grasp the irony.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:30 amChristoph # 7,
Betweeen getting 7 million dollars (Hsu had posted 2 million before) into the state’s coffers with Hsu running for his life on the Pacific Rim and imprisoning Hsu for three years (actually closer to one year under “good time” “reduce overcrowding” policies) which would you choose?
nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:40 amImprisonment. Justice isn’t a business.
Also, perverting the electoral process with millions of dollars of suspect money (foreign influence? other?) is so damaging to the country that it should be prosecuted so to be stopped in the future.
But if you’re asking me if I personally would take the $7 million?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:45 amWhy, when Sen. Lieberman rolls over, it’s wonderful bipartisanship! Shoe, meet other foot.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:48 amTrue. Justice isn’t a business. It’s … war. Acceptable losses. The greatest good for the greatest number. Seven million dollars could fund a lot of sex changes in California.
nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:50 amIf the money is from illegal sources, seize it anyway.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:51 amOne of the best parts of the American justice system is prosecutors can seize a defendant’s assets in many cases to prevent them from potentially wasting those assets defending themselves.
This is important for justice because what if they assets were gained illegally? Then they would benefit by paying their lawyers instead of going to the state where the money is better used.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:54 amAbsolutely. And I hope the U.S. Justice Department is taking a strong interest in this case. It would take a federal agency with cross-border jurisdiction to go after Hsu’s assets.
And just so that we don’t totally derail this thread. Olson should have been AG to begin with. As a lawyer, I consider him to be the acme of our profession. Maybe that’s the reason he wanted Solicitor General — it’s genuinely a lawyer’s job and not an administrator’s.
nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 9:08 amnk, my entire comment 21 was sarcasm and was actually posted in humor to rile you up.
We had this discussion previously and we both came out strongly against the state seizing a defendant’s assets so they can’t mount a defense — remember?
Being as you’re a defense lawyer and all?
Olsen as AG? Absolutely. Would have been the best possible choice. Certainly no one who’s name I know would make a better one.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 9:26 amwhat if the assets were gained illegally?
and what if they weren’t? is it still just for the state to seize the defendant’s means of defending himself? christoph, between this and your foolish attack on liberals in #12, i think you should take a timeout in the men’s room.
assistant devil's advocate (9fff6f) — 9/14/2007 @ 9:32 amha ha, suckered in, ada, read comment 23.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 9:34 amAhem … we were talking about Conrad Black, long-time-legitimate-businessmen-Life-Peer-on-the- House-of-Lords back then, and now we’re talking about somebody whose only business seems to be Ponzi schemes.
nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 9:37 amHey, everyone, LAPD are having a live O.J. press conference on Fox.
Turn on the TV or watch it at Fox News.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 9:38 amBut don’t be in a great hurry. So far it’s 10-minutes of murmuring and lonely mikes.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 9:47 am“Seems to be” is the new legal standard for seizing someone’s assets? And this is your position as a criminal defense lawyer?
Interesting.
What’s wrong with freezing the assets instead until all the facts are decided at trial?
Even that I have some issues with.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 9:49 amI’ll never forget the crowing from the left when Barbara Olsen was killed on 9/11.
They’ve changed their minds since then – now they claim she’s alive in Poland.
The level of hatred and insanity is such that I wouldn’t be surprised to see this come up in the hearings.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 9/14/2007 @ 10:29 amMy point above about the basic evilness of the left was, I believe, sound, Glen.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 10:30 ami heard no crowing over barbara olsen. do you have a link to that glen, or is all the hatred and insanity coming from you?
assistant devil's advocate (6382cd) — 9/14/2007 @ 1:13 pmUp yours, ada.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 1:17 pmSee also Glenn Reynolds on this.
I could give you enough links just from Huffington Post to keep you busy all weekend, ada.
But at the time I was posting on USENET, and heard things there that were even worse.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 9/14/2007 @ 6:28 pmSo, when’s the next Congressional recess?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:18 pmThree words: “Acting Attorney General.”
Suck on it, moonbat scum.
M. Scott Eiland (fb1423) — 9/14/2007 @ 10:26 pm