Late last night, the Senate confirmed Michael Mukasey as Bush’s next AG by a 53-40 vote tally. Democrats should be glad that they got 40 votes in opposition (hmm, they had 40 votes against him - what could they have done with those 40 votes?) to a man who admitted at his confirmation hearing that the president could deem Congress and federal law irrelevant when it suits him. Yet for some reason this vote was thrown together at last minute, depriving the Democrats of 44 votes against Mukasey last night, and therefore leverage against the administration in a possible filibuster effort to extract something of value from this lawless regime.
Why, as Glenn Greenwald notes so well, do the Democrats accept Mitch McConnell's demand that they cannot change Bush policy without a filibuster-proof 60 votes, and then not turn the tables on the GOP when the White House doesn't have the same 60 votes to confirm a nominee? Why are Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer bitches for Mitch McConnell?
At some point in the next year, when the Senate gets blown off by this AG, and the Justice Department tells Congress "no" on a special prosecutor or any other instrument of checks and balances against an imperial presidency, I want the following Democratic supporters of Mukasey to feel the full wrath of a citizenry who will demand to know why these Democrats voted to shred the Constitution out of fear of an unpopular president:
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Thomas Carper of Delaware
Dianne Feinstein of California
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Chuck Schumer of New York
Note that Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Bill Nelson of Florida, as well as other reliable Bush votes in the past weren’t willing to go along with this nominee. The only Mukasey supporter on the list above who is vulnerable next year is Landrieu of Louisiana, so why in hell are the rest of these Democrats afraid of this White House and willing to endorse an imperial presidency above the law?