“In making this selection, I think President Bush has made a very…deliberate effort to choose someone who would not be controversial,” Sidestepping the political firestorm a Ted Olsen nod would have unleashed, Dubya chooses retired judge Michael B. Mukasey to be Gonzales’ replacement at the Justice Department. While conservative, particularly on national security issues, Mukasey is “‘not an ideologue for the sake of being an ideologue,’ said Andrew Ruffino, a former law clerk of the nominee’s. Said Bruce Ackerman, a Yale law professor who was a classmate of Mukasey’s: ‘He is not a hyper-charged Federalist Society type. He is not a glad-hand networker.‘” (He does, on the other hand, have strong ties to Rudy Giuliani.)
Tag: Ted Olsen
A “Lawless Enclave.”
Despite Justice Scalia carrying water for Ted Olson and the Bush team as per usual, it seems that a majority of the Supreme Court may not be amused by Dubya’s defense of the Gitmo gulag.
Split Decision?
As noted yesterday, the Court heard arguments this morning on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). And, in spite of reformers’ earlier hopes, it seems Chief Justice Rehnquist was predisposed against the law, meaning that the fateful decision is probably in the hands of Justice O’Connor, as per usual. Politically speaking, I’d think this Court would have to uphold reform after thrusting themselves so deeply into the Bush v. Gore fiasco, but I guess we’ll see. (Speaking of which, on a side note, conservative zealot Ted Olsen apparently referred to his friend and fellow Richard Mellon Scaife patron Ken Starr as “Justice Starr” during the proceedings, telling him he’ll “have to wait” for his spot on the bench. Sorry, Ken, not in a million years.)
Judgment Day.
Tomorrow, McCain-Feingold finally gets its day in court. For the plaintiffs (aiming to kill the legislation for Big Money), our old friend Ken Starr. For the government (nominally committed to the bill), Ted Olsen. For the reforms, former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman. All in all, it should be a doozy..if I had my druthers, of course, the Court will not only uphold McCain-Feingold but revisit the “money = protected speech” formulation drawn in Buckley v. Valeo. In terms of constitutional principle, it’s one person, one vote…dollars shouldn’t enter the equation.