by James Oliphant
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are getting a few last licks in before they vote on the confirmation of Atty. Gen, nominee Michael Mukasey.
The ranking member, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), today sent a batch of questions to the retired federal judge, who testified before the committee last week.
Specter is primarily concerned with Mukasey's answers concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires a warrant for secret wiretaps. Mukasey indicated he believed that the president may have powers beyond the scope of the act to put in place an alternative program for eavesdropping, perhaps similar to the now defunct National Security Agency effort that sparked turmoil when it was revealed in 2005.
"If you believe the President can act outside the law," Specter wrote, "how do you square that belief with your statement at the hearing that “The President doesn't stand above the law[?]” How do you deal with the public concern that the rule of law is supreme and the President at times appears to put himself above the law?"
Specter's letter comes a day after Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) sent Mukasey a letter demanding clarification of his attitude toward "waterboarding" – an interrogation tactic that involves simulating drowning. Mukasey testified he wasn't familiar with the particulars of the technique and demurred on its legality.
“Your unwillingness to state that waterboarding is illegal may place Americans at risk of being subjected to this abusive technique," the letter states. "If the United States does not explicitly and publicly condemn waterboarding, it will be more difficult to argue that enemy forces cannot waterboard American prisoners.”
Despite pleas from the White House for a swift confirmation, a committee vote on Mukasey has yet to be scheduled. The committee will meet tomorrow for its weekly executive meeting and the nomination is not on the agenda. And it's entirely possible that a vote will not be scheduled for next week either, as Democrats push for more specifcs from the nominee.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Like either of those two would argue FOR an American serviceman.
A senator can avoid being detained going to and from D.C. They are immune from punishment for slander while speaking on the Senate floor. Is this above the law?
Posted by: whatnow | October 24, 2007 5:40 PM
For all the people who helped rescue Specter's faltering campaign in the last election, this must be a time of tremendous regret. If Congress had a jerk of the year award, Specter would be right behind Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy for the honors.
Posted by: Hampton | October 24, 2007 5:45 PM
"If you believe the President can act outside the law," Specter wrote, "how do you square that belief with your statement at the hearing that “The President doesn't stand above the law[?]”
Why do the 'evil doers' hate America and the President?
Posted by: C.Morris | October 24, 2007 6:36 PM
Here we go again. This guy sounded too good for a Bush appointee at first. He said torture is repugnant and the president doesn't stand above the law. But now he says the president can act outside the law (as long as he's sitting down?). And he can't define what constitutes torture. C'mon, Alberto's inquisitors will need to know what the limits are. Where do you draw the line?
Posted by: Tom O | October 24, 2007 6:37 PM
Impeach the Republican illegal wiretappers:
http://flickr.com/photos/smugbug/76013438/
Posted by: John E | October 24, 2007 7:52 PM
A senator can avoid being detained going to and from D.C. They are immune from punishment for slander while speaking on the Senate floor. Is this above the law?
Posted by: whatnow | October 24, 2007 5:40 PM
Is this a serious question?
Of course its NOT above the law. Those immunities are found in the explicit words of the Constitution. (See U.S. Const., Article I, Sec. 6.) The Constitution IS the "supreme law of the land." (U.S. Const., Art. VI.) So, if it prescribes these immunities, it is the law.
Posted by: John W. | October 24, 2007 8:36 PM
. . . . If Congress had a jerk of the year award, Specter would be right behind Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy for the honors.
Posted by: Hampton | October 24, 2007 5:45 PM
Would you care to explain this comment?
Is it so bad that some Senators actually care whether the nominee for Attorney General understands the rule of law and constitutional orthodoxy? That's all Sen. Specter is trying to do.
The issues on the table are troublesome for a free society governed by the Constitution. We who read law have always understood the Constitution to contains all the powers delegated to the federal government. If that is the case, how, then, could the President possess “inherent” powers? Are “inherent powers” something derived from outside the Constitution, or are they power that derives their essence from one or all of the explicitly delegated powers? If they are not from the Constitution, are there any principled limitations at law on their exercise?
In other words, does the President get to be a dictator after all?
Inquiring minds want to know, and Specter asked the right question.
Posted by: John W. | October 24, 2007 8:57 PM
Arlen Specter is a RINO and he just wants to bash anything Bush. Specter should kneel down and thank God for Bush without Bush's help this jerk would have been defeated by Pat Toomey who now heads the Club for Growth. Specter is a liberal jerk period. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | October 25, 2007 10:06 AM
Sen. Specter should have asked Mukasey:
"WHO WOULD JESUS WATERBOARD?"
I would love to see him answer THAT!
Posted by: BC | October 25, 2007 2:02 PM
BC, I prefer the term "forced baptism" to waterboarding.
Posted by: Herbie H. | October 25, 2007 3:36 PM