Discussion about who GWB may nominate to replace AGAG. Will he choose to be a "uniter" and nominate someone like Larry Thompson, or will we see another Harriet Miers-esque candidate step up to the podium? I would have a hard time believing anyone in the latter category would make it through senate approval at this stage.
I'm hoping he goes the high road, and she is available. Sandra Day O'Connor. The vote would be 100-0.
Dude, this Bush we're talking about. He's probably already sent a team out to pitch the job to that fine orator Miss Teen South Carolina.
She's probalby think she was getting called up for jury duty. It's part of her duty as a citizen of South Africamerica.
Here's an idea for the new AG that makes sense......of course that's why it won't happen. http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/538613,CST-CONT-prof02.article
I, personally am not advocating Calebresi, but you have to remember that even with the Dems controlling the Senate you're not going to get anyone that you (or I) are going to agree with politically. With that in mind, someone like Calebresi would certainly be a better choice for the last year and a half than another Miers or AGAG. Keep in mind also that the unitary executive theory is not to be confused with the idea that the Pres. can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. See one of my posts in Archer's forum (sorry, can't recall the thread title) on that subject.
Yeah, but this guy is a half-step away from Yoo. No more Unitary Exec crap, please, even if it is for a short period.
I've been banned from Archer's forum. In any case, anyone who buys into the Unitary Exec theory would be much more likely to continue the trend of the AG serving as the President's personal attorney.
Although possible....I don't agree that's necessarily true. Here's the blogpost by Professor Cass Sunstein (definitely NOT a John Yoo President = King advocate) that started the discussion...... http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/08/what-the-unitar.html And here's part of my post on the issue....... Professor Sunstein's post does a great job of specifically defining what the theory of unitary executive entails. And to the extent that folks on the left or right demonize or laud actions taken by this administration as examples of the unitary executive theory at work.....they are, for the most part, incorrect.....or perhaps, more accurately, the basis for their criticism/praise is misplaced. However, (and I don't think you were implying otherwise) one can agree with the unitary executive theory and still contend that executive power overall should be construed quite narrowly (as IIRC Professor Sunstein has argued in other articles)......just as one can agree with the theory and contend the opposite....that executive power should be construed quite broadly (as Professor Yoo would argue). For that matter, it's possible to believe in a non-unitary executive theory but still contend that the executive wields a broad range of powers under Article II. The point is, regardless of one's views on the unitary executive theory, one could still contend that some of the actions of this administration have exceeded what are, or should, be the limits to executive power. Additionally, one can hold such views and still consistently dismiss the hyperbole that we (as a country) are hurtling toward totalitarianism.
Lots of talk heating up that Bush has someone at the top of the list. Someone who would be somewhat likeable by the Democrats. Michael Mukasey. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070916/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attorney_general
Bump. We have a winner. So it was pretty much getting leaked this morning. Mukasey it is. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attorney_general