« If the UC Regents Are So Susceptible to Political Pressure... | Main | Jim Webb Channels emptywheel »

September 12, 2007


I didn't think that nomination would get out of committee either.

(L'shana tova to Team TNH)

Happy New Year to you!

Okay, so Olson's a partisan-hack pinata with no chance of getting out of committee.

Terwilliger, like Olson, worked on Bush's 2000 Campaign - he's out on the same grounds.

Silberman has no track record of independent Judicial Review - he's a Bush fixer. He'll never gain concensus.

Mukasey is favored by the Dems, so the Goopers will never get behind him.

Thompson doesn't come across as having broad enough shoulders to carry the DoJ back to respectability, but he'd be worth a look in committee. I just don't think the Goopers believe he's a strong enough (ideologically speaking) guy for the job, and ultimately won't nominate him.

My guess is Bush will stonewall as long as he can with these five, griping all the way, but not worried about Clement doing anything to upset the boat in the meantime.

Then, reluctantly, Bush will reach into his bag of 'compromised' Goopers and ceremoniously pull out his nominee for the savior of Justice - the would-be General Orrin Hatch.

EW thanks for your read on the Olson nomination.

radio.. Does Hatch want out of the Senate? January 2009 is so close. Why would he give up his seat for that?

I hear Erwin Chemerinsky is looking for work.

Or Pat Robertson. Doesn't he run a law school somewhere?

Neil, check it out:

From the AP (Senate Democrats Warn Against Olson Pick

"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."


EW - Lanny Davis was touting Olson as AG in an article on the HuffPo a couple of weeks ago. This could have been freelance useful idiocy on Davis's part, or perhaps the Liebercrats put him up to it. I'm amazed at how someone who worked for Clinton during the Arkansas Project inquisition could support Olsen, he may as well as been promoting Ken Starr.

Why was Lanny Davis touting Olsen? Sorry to say, but it is the AIPAC connection.

Ishmael, Davis did support Olson on HuffPost, and subsequently was contacted by someone who posted the exchange on FDL. Davis said he things Olson is the best of the people the administration might nominate, and as I recall, thinks he is independent. If you want to express an opinion directly to Davis, he works for a lawfirm named Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, which is on the web under www.orrick.com, and his e-mail is provided by them. I'm sure you will be about as polite as possible....

Ahh, come on. Nobody wants a fight on Capital Hill.

Do they?

Why would they?

Is Olson a straw-man?
Reid has been de-balled politically in failing to show spine to the administration with FISA etc.

Is the Administration giving him the opportunity to be the pugnacious boxer, win the "fight" over Olson, and then presumably be magnanimous with the WHO's "second choice".

Certainly after squashing Meirs, Dems were "softer" with Alito and Roberts. I would not put it past them to leak names for planned defeats when it is essentially meaningless, in order to shore up victory with the real nominee when it actually reaches committee.

I would not be surprised if they ultimately put forward a name that has not yet been heard- oppo research has been focused on the leaked names.

Correction: after Miers Dems were softened for Alito. [corrected spelling and Roberts nominated pre-Miers]

I think we are going to see many actions like this in an effort to boost Preznet's poll ratings. He's going to announce a limited troop withdrawl plan in hopes of a bounce. So lets make a shiney object of negative press making Dems look partisan. There will be more before November...

I'm more convinced all this Olson stuff is just hot air coming from the far right, hoping to pick a fight with the Democrats.

Or hoping to make the real nominee look acceptable by comparison -- which is a much greater danger.

I see my point has been made more effectively above by drational. The Judiciary Committee has to be prepared to reject just about any nominee. There has to a commitment, under oath, that the nominee will move the subpoenas and be the country's chief law enforcement officer, not Bush's lawyer.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad