Bailey's Musings: My Response

Issac J. Bailey writes a perspective piece called Musings on the '06 election and says the main point of the power shift in Washington occurred to hold the GOP accountable for their missteps.

The first part of this op-ed is about Iraq. I agree with his conclusions on Iraq, except to add that Iraq only became a central front in our country's fight against terrorism after we invaded. However, we broke it so we have to fix it.

The politics of fear did not work because we are tired of being told that we need to surrender bits of our civil liberties and allow this and future presidents more and more power. We are also sick of the corruption and partisanship that rule Washington.

Yes, Mr. Bailey I do Remeber Lindsey Graham bucking his party by joining the "Group of 14" and preventing the Senate from being changed permanently to accommodate quick confirmation of judges, but without much though for what would happen should Democrats control the White House and the Senate. I agree with the contention that the GOP would have had no voice after the Democrats took the Senate had Graham not joined the "Group of 14" because confirming the judges alone would not have saved the party because they are in trouble with the base for overspending among other issues. In fact, the top reasons people gave for their votes were corruption, Iraq, and terrorism. Judges was nowhere on the list of top issues that decided votes.

Graham showed leadership when he bucked the base over the judicial confirmation issue and protected the Senate as an institution over the agenda of the party. He also allowed for other important legislation, such as the Defense Authorization bill, to move forward. If the nuclear option had been utilized the troops may not have gotten their money and that would have put them in danger. The Democrats already were and would have continued to slow committee progress to the point of no work getting done and this would have permanently stalled any hopes of having any other initiative pass.

They do still want to kick him out in two years because he had the temerity to stand up and tell them that they can't have everything they want and that a handful was better than nothing. These people also do not like him being friends with John McCain or working closely with Hilary Clinton. They seem to prefer bitter partisanship to working out differences and being able to trash the Democrats instead of allowing Graham to work with them and possibly get them to compromise on reforming Social Security, an issue important to many. They would rather have all their judges than allow for opportunities to have an upperhand on other policies.

Graham's lesson to all of us is that our system is made to work in a fashion that will give us good policy even if it is a compromise. We will still get good judges even though those originally put up may not be confirmed.

Fear doesn't Rule the Day: Reason Does

The Democrats have taken the House and may yet take over the Senate. These next two years will not be that dark because the Democrats will have to govern from the center due to thin margins of victory.

The terrorists have not won and our freedom still exists. Osama Bin Laden doesn't care how we vote because he will try to kill us no matter who is in power. I had no idea that the voters were on any type of hook. The people voted the GOP out of power on issues, of which corruption was the most important. No where did gay marriage show up on the radar as a reason for the vote going the way it did.

It is hard to argue that the democrats are allowing the terrorists easy access to the country when it is President Bush that did not enforce our immigration laws and the Republicans did not start to move on the issue until before the election and then passed a border fence and didn't fund it. Also, we lost a valuable immigration screening program when the Department of Homeland Security was created.

Democrats love the country as much as Republicans do; they just have different ideas. The major complaint, though it doesn't come across is lack of checks and balances. The Republicans (George Allen) is being investigated for robocalls that mislead voters to the wrong polling places.

It is crazy to say that they will rob us of our virgins. It is not fair to call people morons under these circumstances. They only wanted to make a point to Republicans that they were not going to allow them to forget where they came from when they were elected.

President May Ignore War Funding Law

The President has claimed that he may ignore the request of the legislature to submit a request for war funding in the budget this year, according to Air Force Times. In keeping with his history of appending signing statements to legislation that he signs he issued a "signing statement" with last year's defense budget that said he would construe the provisions in a manner consistent with the President's power as Commander in Chief. This allows him a way to ignore the legislature if he chooses and do as he likes. If he doesn't want to submit a request for war funding than he will interpret the law in a way that says he does not have to submit the request.

The Constitution grants the legislature the enumerated power to "raise and support armies," which means that the President, although the legislation does not day it is required that he should submit an honest request. A legislatively written request to the President is similar to a lower-ranking military person receiving a "suggestion" from a superior. The legislature needs to know exactly what the President needs equally as much as a superior needs a subordinate to follow the suggestion.

The people have a right ot know how much we plan to spend on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget year because after all the President is fond of telling us that it is our money. We also have a right to not have our legislators abused by supplemental request that are not supplemental at all and drive our deficit up rather than reducing it. The voters come down on their representatives for spending too much, however, it is hard to expect them to cut off funding with troops in the field. The President needs to stop his refusal to request the money through a standard budget process.

Chris Shays attributes Abu Ghraib abuses to sex ring

What's up Chris? You saw more of the Abu Ghraib photos than we did and now you say that there was no torture or abuse? This is ludicrous.

The Stamford Advocate reports that Congressman Chris Shays said the following in a debate with Dianne Ferral:

Now I've seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture. It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked. And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture.

This is disgusting coming from a sitting congressman who saw more of the pictures from Abu Ghraib especially because we were told that they were too provocative and the American people did not need to see them. It is also disgusting because Senator Graham said that the pictures depicted rape and murder.

If dog leashes around the neck and sexual humiliation aren't torture, congressman, than what is torture?

Well shays did define torture when asked as "anything that could cause mental or physical pain or sleep deprivation" and claimed that he had only seen 600 photos and not the ones that were the worst.

Even if he attributed the behavior to a sex ring among the Maryland National Guard wasn't the things they done designed to cause mental and/or physical pain? Perverts use sex for power and not that for which it was meant.

A dog leash around the neck? Is this not meant to at least cause mental pain by placing the detainee in a humiliating position? IF they pull the leash a little too tight does that not risk physical pain?
This is outrageous and should not be stood for from our elected officials.

Judiciary Oath a Bad Idea

Today, the Committee for Justice released and extended its "Fair Judiciary Oath" to Senate candidates. The two requirements for the oath are to support a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate and opposition to 'arbitrary' blocks in committee.

I cannot argue with a fair vote on the floor, but I would never sign the right of filibuster away because I would have to ask what I should do if a nominee that I thought was objectionable got out of committee. I would vote against such nominee if given the occasion, but I would not want to stop someone who believed that they needed to filibuster to bring public attention to it. Let the voters vote out those who filibuster if they feel so strongly.

The second provision is even worse because it would take away a Senator's right to make an independent decision about each nominee because a decision to support a committee hold for any reason except a reason predefined by the group.

I am really concerned that this will end up not applying across the board because these people will oppose the nominees of a Democrat based on the very thing that they do not want analyzed about their nominees, ideology. I would recommended that no candidate sign this because it takes away their right to make an informed decision.
(hat tip: RedState)

Graham serves in Afghanistan

Lindsey is the only member of the National Guard or Reserves who serves in the U.S. Senate. He recently returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan where he helped to train Afghan lawyers and judges.

Graham helps train Afghan Lawyers

A Question of Values

America was born of a noble idea of some very intelligent men. Americans are born into a tradition and taught a set of values that they celebrate on Independence Day. Our values are liberty, justice, and rule of law. We praise these values, but lately we seem to have forgotten them in the fight with the terrorists. Terrorists work to change values by violence rather than peaceful means. We work to change things by peaceful means and only use the military when necessary. We are told that this is a different kind of war with new rules and therefore our paradigm must shift.

How does the fight effect our values? What is the role of fear in this change? How do we maintian our traditional values while fighting an enemy that knows no bounds? These questions and many others are difficult to answer. However, we would do best if we were to remeber the words of Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Since the above quote refers to liberty, I sahll start there. Our essential liberties were hard won by James Madison in the crafting of a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constituion are known as the Bill of Rights. Since its framing some of these essential rights have been determined to cover women and minorities. However, the essential liberty we seem to have little value for today is framed in the Fourth Amendment which provides for the security of our persons, houses, papers, and effects, from unreasonable search and seizure. This essential liberty was confirmed to include the privacy of phone calls in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Katz v United States. Since this landmark decision laws have extended the protected zone to include other electronic communications, through the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Laws such as Title III and FISA direct police and intelligence agencies to get a warrant in order toinvade the privacy of someone’s electronic communications.

Change the War Crimes Act, I Think Not

The administration has insisted that they were not breaking the law or ignoring international standards in its treatment of detainees, however, a draft revision of the War Crimes Act may shed light into their actual desire to change a law in order to protect against prosecution for lawbreaking that has already occurred.Today’s Washington Post reports on the administration’s proposed amendments to the War Crimes Act, which specify the categories of illegal activities that are absolutely banned while leaving flexibility so great that CIA officials and others operating under orders of the President or a political appointee immunity from prosecution as well as giving the appointee immunity from prosecution. However, the military officials, who are immune under the War Crimes Act, would be prosecutable for the Conduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Our military personnel can be charged with an offense under the general article if their offense is not covered by a specified article.

This attempt by the administration to propose very narrow definitions of war crimes comes on the heels of a request for Congress to define war crimes reproted in the New York Times. The administration did not give them a fair chance to do their work. This proposal will preoccupy and cotrol debate because it is the first and gives staunch supports of the President like John Cornyn and Jeff Sessions suggestions to work with in handling the most difficult issue of our time.

According to my interpretations of the reports these amendments would effectively make the McCain provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) ineffectual. The McCain provision was approved by the Senate 90-9 and also by an overwhelming house majority.

The Graham Principle: American Values and the Rule of Law

We have been fighting a battle with terrorists since 9/11/2001 and Sen. Graham has been consistent in his crusade to have us fight the war according to the principles that have made this country great: justice and the rule of law. These values are the most important, especially in a time of war. Lindsey is not only a Senator leading the charge for legal military tribunals but is apparently fighting for the interests of the Judge Advocate General Corps and the military that has allowed him to earn his degrees and support his sister so she could get her college degree.

He was indignant after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in the media. He was not about to let us look like our enemy because we would lose the moral high-ground. He even told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during a hearing that the way we fight the war on terror is about us and not them. He supported the Detainee Treatment Act which banned “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment” of detainees. He also said that we needed to follow the rule of law in treatment of the terror suspects.

Free-Market Principles of Fiscal Policy

1.Above all: Keep taxes low. High taxes (relative to other countries and the states) have a profoundly negative effect on economic growth.


2.Don’t penalize earnings and investment. Taxes on earnings and investment income are particularly harmful to economic growth. Income taxes have a large negative effect on economic growth.

3.Avoid “sin” and excise taxes. Taxes on specific goods and services are often unfair, unreliable, and regressive.

4.Create a transparent and accountable budget. The sole purpose of collecting taxes is to finance the core functions of state government. But few states have budget processes in place that enable legislators to identify those functions and measure the performance of state agencies.

5.Privatize public services. Privatization is a proven way to reduce government spending while preserving or improving the quality of core public services.

6.Avoid corporate subsidies. Subsidies to corporations and selective tax abatement are questionable politics and bad economics. Such assistance is unnecessary if general taxes are kept uniform.

7.Cap taxes and expenditures. A tax and expenditure limit (TEL) protects elected officials from public pressure to spend surplus tax revenues during good times. During bad economic times, the beneficiaries of new programs oppose in cuts. It is a recipe for inefficient government growth, fiscal crises, and tax increases.

8.Fund students, not schools. Free and universal K-12 education is generally agreed to be one of the core functions of state government, but international and historical standards, public schools int the U.S. are costly and yield poor results. Cities and states that are experimenting with school choice have seen achievement gains.

9.Reform Medicaid programs. Next to education, Medicaid is the largest single expense in most state budgets. Costs are rising at double-digit rates in many states, while fraud and abuse take an alarming share of every dollar spent.

10.Protect state employees from politics. Workers should be free to choose or decline union membership, and state and local governments should be prohibited from deducting funds used for political purposes from the paychecks of public workers.

No Nomination Games Being Played

I agree that something needs to be done about the obstruction of judicial nominees, but what can be done so that we do not change to operation of the Senate? The “nuclear option? is no option at all becasue it will destroy the Senate.

Sen. Graham is blocking Mr. Haynes on principle becasue of his role in the torture scandal. No game here. Mr. Haynes wrote and endorsed the memos.

You bet that there would be cries of foul play if his election were moved up to tomorrow becasue it is not supposed to be until 2008. He is not supportive of nominees colling their heels fro years, but the one in question is problematic and there was some given up by the compromise.

The abuses have existed for a long time, but that does not mean we need a radical solution that makes irreversable changes.

I support the reforms because it would give all nominees of all presidents a fair vote, however, the Senators should have a right to block if there are substantial concerns, such as there are with Mr. Haynes.

I do not have a problem with knowing who is doing the blocking, however, a rules change should be done without the “nuclear option? and the Specter approach is a good start.

Response to “Lord on Judicial Nominations? on ConfirmThem.

Friend of Graham and Good Policy

Paul at PowerLine is as disappointed in Sen. Graham’s lack of a response to the issue of weather he is blocking the Haynes nomination as he is in the senator's recent letter to conservative groups. The partisanship of the retired military officer does not matter as long as his concerns are valid. I am sure that Paul would be signing a different turn if this military officer were a partisan Republican. The other man mentioned, Mr. Guter is not incoherent just because he disagrees with a policy. If Mr. Haynes could not break from his ’superiors’ as General Counsel of DoD than it is right to question his independence as a judge when dealing with the cases that are sure to come before the court in the interceding years.

Sen. Graham is relying on the testimony of former officers that either worked with Haynes or in the environment that Haynes created when he sold out his DoD position to go along with the Justice Department position. It is unfair to say that Sen. Graham is ignoring pro-Haynes viewpoints of the officer cited. If Maj. Gen. Michael Marchand would go in and talk to him or write a letter to him than He would consider his viewpoint as well.

He is talking about the JAG memos, which took him a year and one-half to get and they were classified for some unknown reason. He refers to these memos because they represented DoD policy and the concerns about the effect on the service men and women were valid. If the advice was followed than why couldn’t the Senator have them sooner? If they weren’t doing aything wrong why classify the opinion of the JAGs when the memos between Bybee, Haynes, Gonzales, and the other civilian lawyers were made public? Why did Secretary Rumsfeld later have to decertify some of the methods and why are we still dealing with this if he listened to their advice and the document addressed their concerns?

The argument that Sen. Graham did not consider the views of Maj. Gen. Roning or supporters of Haynes is wrong because just the fact that he called someone that positively assessed Haynes is telling about his willingness to consider views contrary to his own and the critics.

The letter does not directly address the issue of his role in stopping the Haynes nomination, but conservatives have drawn the conclusion from the wording that he is the impediment. This is no surprise to me because he has said that there was one nominee that he would vote against and I think Haynes is that nominee. If the Haynes nomination goes through committee and to the floor there will be a filibuster and I would rather see Sen. Graham do everything in his power to preserve the civility and working order of the Senate.

No Haynes and No Flag Amendment

According to ConfirmThem via the American Spectator Blog the conservative groups are demanding a vote on the Judges, particularly Haynes rather than consideration of a flag amendment. I believe that they only care about Jim Haynes because it appears that a Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham is holding him up and they think he should get a vote.

I don’t think that any senator thinks these issues are the equivalent of “boob bait and switch.? They all know the importance of the court and wish to confirm fit and qualified judges. This is their duty.

I am not sure what Mr. Keene complains of we have confirmed 7 of the original 11 stalled nominees, as well as a Chief Justice and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This seems like most of what they wanted. One nominee withdrew and another faces ethics questions. Mr. Haynes is stalled because of his role in the torture memos. The most likely to have the stall lifted is William Myers because his questions are ones of ideology rather than ethics or job performance.

Jan LaRue is correct that it is the Senate’s duty to advise and consent, however, that does not mean to just approve every nominee that comes from the White House. It is part of that duty to thoroughly examine a nominee for any problems that they may pose. There is other pressing business beside the judges. Mr. Haynes is being blocked because of his role while DoD General Counsel in the torture scandal.

William Greene is incorrect because the duty is for the Judiciary Committee to first thoroughly examine the nominee and take care of any objections, when possible, before the nominee is voted out to the floor. Once on the floor they are supposed to get an up or down vote. Sure Sen. Graham will answer to his constituents, but he is doing the right thing by blocking Mr. Haynes.

The issue with Judge Boyle’s rate of cases overturned may not be as much the number or percentage as what issues and questions he has been overturned on by the higher courts.

I agree that reforms need to be passed regarding timetable for consideration of nominees, however, we also need to allow Senators to use their prerogative to block unacceptable nominees, even if they must tell us they are doing it.

I agree with all the sentiments expressed about judges being confirmed in a timely manner being the faithful dispatch of the Constitution, but this must also apply when a Democrat president sends nominees to the Senate.

Sen. Graham Doesn't Disappoint Me

Response to Mike Reino at SC6.

I started out volunteering for the Presidential campaign of John Edwards two years ago. I went to Iowa and Milwaukee as a volunteer. I cam home from one of these trips and I was watching the Senate on C-SPAN 2 when I happened across a speech by Lindsey Graham, who was the Jr senator from South Carolina at the time. The speech was about trade. I remembering who would dare present the unorthodox position that he did.

I have followed his Senate career for the last two years and have defended him every chance I get because I do plan to pattern myself after him. I like his style of hammering out compromises and tackling current and controversial issues head on without fear.

In spite of the high praise I do sometimes wonder what he is thinking, but it is just a disagreement to me and not a disappointment. There is much wrong with the Senate version of the immigration bill, however, I think his heart is in the right place. There is another problem with this issue besides the agency not being able to handle the influx and that is the executive department’s lax enforcement. Sen. Graham is only trying to assist in fixing a problem that the President could have fixed quickly with an executive order that demanded stepped up enforcement of existing law. The solution is not perfect, but that is why we have a conference committee.

I understand the perils of the immigration issues because I live in Chicago and have a difficult time finding employment because I don’t speak Spanish. I also understand that until we enforce the fines on employers for hiring illegals than we will have the problem.

I do think that Lindsey is caught up in the spirit of compromise as he tends to be because he wants the Senate to work together. It is unfortunate that John McCain and the rest you name are so derided. I do not think that Lindsey should be beat based on the Group of 14 because we still got our judges. Did we really want to destroy to Senate and change forever the way it works? I don’t. I like judicial compromise because it has given good judges positions. Some still won’t make it, but that is the process.

I do not think that the second is as plausible as the first. Lindsey made some of the most passionate and compassionate speeches I saw from anyone on this issue. I am sure he received some contributions from business interests, but so did all the senators. This is not as much the problem as his bleeding heart may be on the issue.

I am and always will be more like Lindsey Graham than Jim DeMint. I am still not a Fair Tax supporter and will remain a compromiser for the overall good.

No Enemies of Jim Haynes, Just people Asking Pertinent Questions

As Paul at PowerLineBlog points out Jim Haynes has his defenders who are also people who worked with him. If there is nothing wrong with him being a plaintiff against Secretary Rumsfeld in a case over abuses with the ACLU and being on the National Veterans for Kerry steering committee, than why mention this because it is not relevant except as a tool to say look here’s a liberal who worked against the President in an election and was willing to work with the ACLU as a way to tarnish his argument and call it incoherent. He may say there is nothing wrong with this but it is enough to plant doubt in the minds of people who might have been willing to support the argument before that Haynes was unfit. This casts a political question that does not belong. I do not believe that this stuff would have even been mentioned if he had worked with say the ACLJ on a case or the Bush Veterans Committee.

Paul has also spoken with a former co-worker that says good things about Mr. Haynes. However, this alone does not take away the serious and important questions being raised by the retired officers, Sen. Graham, and Sen. McCain about his role in the torture scandal.

Why is it not a good enough reason for him to have been instrumental in writing and approving memos that may have contributed to the environment of the Abu Ghraib situation? To me and others this is enough. He may be a dedicated civil servant with the ability to serve on the court, however, the nomination is derailed not for political reasons, but for reasons of principle. We don;t torture and we should not condone or support it either. The Haynes nomination is a chance for us to make a conclusive statement about torture and the memos. It is no more disgusting that the nomination is held up than if it were a nominee you did not like who had the same background.

Lindsey Graham may have been blocking Haynes’ nomination, but he is doing so for a reason or principle, not because of politics. The Judiciary Committee is the place to stop an undesirable nominee. If you want him out of Committee so bad and believe he is being blocked get a majority of senators to sign discharge papers and move him out of committee without a vote. Lindsey is doing the honorable thing standing up for who the American people are and that we do not stand for torture even of terror suspects. He is not carrying water for John McCain, but standing on his own two feet. This is a risk for their political careers, but I contend that it is one worth taking. I do not live in South Carolina, but I write letters supporting the block because I feel it is the way that we best serve the country and keep the court room a quiet place where everyone can feel that they will receive justice. The block is the honorable course. I think that the good people of South Carolina should lend moral support in his block of the Haynes nomination because of the torture issue. Lindsey is a fine public servant, but he does not support torture. This is his way of telling us that the president is not going to completely get his way and that is correct.

Hayne's Critics Aren't Incoherent

I will listen to retired high ranking military officers who were JAG lawyers; Sen. Graham, a current JAG lawyer, and John McCain before I would listen to conservative activists about the nomination of Jim Haynes. Why? Because all these men have been lawyers who deal with the law of war or in John McCain’s case a former POW.

Lindsey Graham’s block on the Haynes nomination is standing for a principle that we have always stood for; we do not torture. They should be unhappy about his role with regard to the treatment of GITMO detainees and what happened at Abu Ghraib becasue it is contrary to our values as a nation.

Modeled After Sen. Graham

Two years ago when I traveled for the campaign of John Edwards I never dreamed I would be writing about modeling myself after Lindsey Graham because at the time I didn’t know who he was and hadn’t cared much to watch C-SPAN. I began watching C-SPAN during the campaign hoping to see John Edwards give the blockbuster speech on the Senate floor that would set me swooning. However, this never happened because John Edwards was out campaigning.

Discovery of Sen. Graham
One day while listening to the Senate proceedings I heard a refreshingly eager voice. He was talking about trade and jobs. It was enough to make me wonder about the speaker. I turned around and watched as the gentleman spoke and I saw that it was Lindsey Graham. I had just returned from campaigning in Milwaukee at this time. I couldn’t believe that in the middle of a campaign I was getting interested in someone else; on the other side no less. Sen. Graham had captured my attention and I did research to find out more about his life, career, and positions. The more I looked into it the more I admired him and decided that he was the person upon which I wanted to model myself.

Disagreement, Defense, and SupportI disagree with him sometimes and other times I wonder what he is thinking, but this never makes me question his status as my role model.

We tend to question those items we disagree with more than that with which we agree. However, I chose to adopt his idea of compromising and finding a middle ground in order to get something done. The largest example of this is the judicial compromise, which he took flak for, but I found it easy to defend.

I know I have moved slightly left (populist-leaning conservative to populist conservative) over the last two years and appearantly Sen. Graham has also, at least on immigration. He has a populist streak that causes his independent, some would say maverick, actions. I share this streak and the desire to help people. I share the willingness to challenge orthodoxy when necessary, like in supporting a payroll tax cap increase to pay for the transition cost of the Social Security reform.

I do not agree with his support of the Marriage Protection Amendment for Constitutional reasons, but I honor his wish to support it. I will also defend his vote for the nuclear option should it become necessary. I hope this option never returns to the debate and never sees the light of day again.

Conclusion
I choose to model myself after Sen. Graham because of his willingness to compromise and stand for principles, as well as his life being a model of the American Dream.

• Response to Lindsey Graham is Starting to Really Disappoint Me, by Mike Reino at SC6

Haynes Should be Blocked from Being on the Court

In a “Vote that Shouldn’t be Ducked" Paul at PowerLine accuses Sen. Graham of ducking a negative vote on the nomination of Jim Haynes for the Fourth Circuit by blocking the nomination from moving out of the Judiciary Committee. This is based on an article in The Hill newspaper that says Graham is blocking the nomination.

The Hill speculates, as I have, that Lindsey Graham is blocking the nomination of Jim Haynes to the Fourth Circuit, and that Graham’s good friend John McCain may also be involved. The notion is that McCain, who opposes Haynes because as General Counsel of Defense Department Haynes had a role with respect to the treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees, would rather not have to vote against Haynes. By preventing Haynes from getting past the Judiciary Committee, Graham relieves his friend from having to cast that vote.

I do not agree that Graham is ducking the vote.He is against the policy of torture which Haynes has endorsed and has refused to answer crucial questions about his documented role in the implementation of the policy. He was an Army JAG and is current General Counsel of the DoD. Graham has also counted the tea leaves and sees that there will be a filibuster on the Senate floor once Haynes is passed out of committee. Rather than being seen as hypocritical he has decided that the better course of action is blocking him in committee. This is the far better course of action because inflaming the debate over GITMO in this context would do much more harm than good.

Judiciary Oath would ban Brownback's Action

Sen. Sam Brownback is blocking federal court nominee Janet T. Neff. Why? Has she committed an ethical violation? Has she been involved ina conflict of interest? Has she committed a crime? No! No! No! She merely attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple. Brownback says he only "wants to assure himself that she did not preside over an illegal marriage ceremony." He claims that it speaks to her "judicial activism." Republicans have criticized Democrats for blocking nominees of Mr. Bush and now a Republican is doing so on very little more than a personal decision to attend the ceremony.

This is the type of block that the Committee for Justice judicial oath would eliminate, which is a bad idea because it would also disallow blocks for legitimate reasons. However, there are other ways to alleviate this problem. Brownback is grasping at straws in order to play to the religious conservatives. He stretches his own credibility by doing this and it is only occurring because it is an election year and he wants to run for President in 2008.

(hat tip: TheAgitator.com)

Blocking Haynes a Good Move

EdWhalen reports that “According to a very knowledgeable non-Senate source, the news is much worse for Fourth Circuit nominee William Haynes: Senator McCain is committed to stopping Haynes’s confirmation, and Senator Graham, as a favor to Senator McCain, will keep the nomination from being reported out of committee. If this news is accurate, it would appear that there is no hope for Haynes’s nomination.?

Paul at Power Line analyzes this in the following manner: “

As I have argued, Haynes, an outstanding public servant, is being made the scapegoat for questionable legal advice provided by the Justice Department with respect to the interrogation of detainees. Haynes used that advice to provide guidance to the military, as he should have. If Haynes had provided legal advice inconsistent with the position of the Justice Department, he would have demonstrated a lawlessness that might constitute grounds for blocking his confirmation.

If McCain wants to punish an administration official for playing a key role in the development of our policy on interrogating detainees, a better target would be Attorney General Gonzales. The “offending? legal advice was prepared for Gonzales who then was the president’s counsel. Unlike Haynes, Gonzales arguably was in a position to cause the Justice Department’s position to be rejected.

The Alito Hearings

Sens. Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein were on FoxNews Sunday to discuss the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. It was basically a one sided one issue interview. Feinstein controlled and abortion was discussed. It was not balanced. Sen. Graham did not get much time to respond, but on statements with which the FoxNews audience agree.

Sen. Graham’s Wit, Wisdom, and Leadership

 

Sen. Graham is one of our sharpest sneators. He seems the best interests of South Carolina and the country in mind with every action. I am specifically proud of the action he in being a part of the Group of 14. He also has a wonderful sense of humor and is thoughtful.

He stands up to the administration when his conscience tells him he must, like on the issue of torture. He has been honest with the country about Iraq and the chance we have of succeeding there. He asks tough and penetrating questions of officials in committee hearings.

The first stance he took that I liked was on trade. He went against the grain of the party and voted “no” on CAFTA. He made his ‘South Carolina pockets’ speech and said “If we are not here to fight for American jobs then I do not know what we are here for.” I appreciate him standing up for American jobs.

I know he will be a leader. Sen. McCain thinks he looks like an attractive vice presidential candidate. I tend to agree, but wish him to stay in the Senate, where he could do more good for the country at this particular time.