(
From the diaries -- kos)
Kudos to the Senate Democrats:
A Senate Judiciary Committee
divided along partisan lines advanced Alberto Gonzales' nomination as attorney general to the full Senate Wednesday despite Democratic complaints that he is too close to President Bush to be effective as the nation's top law enforcement official.
"It's hard to be a straight shooter when you're a blind loyalist," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Republicans muscled Gonzales' nomination through the panel on a 10-8 party line vote and are expected to use their 55-44 advantage to confirm him there next week at the earliest...
Democrats complained that Gonzales was evasive with his answers to their questions about White House policies in the war on terror. They have used his nomination and that of secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice to criticize the Iraq war and the treatment of foreign prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Democrats laid much of the blame at Gonzales' feet. "Based on the glimpses of secret policy formulations and legal rationales that have come to light, I believe his judgments not to have been sound," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
"His judgment is defective," Biden added.
Republicans said Gonzales shouldn't be the scapegoat for what happened to foreign prisoners.
"Most of these allegations have nothing to do with Judge Gonzales and in any event have been thoroughly discussed," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz...
Democrats say they will require several hours of debate on the Senate floor before allowing a confirmation vote.
"I think that a man who gave the legal advice to the president to allow this to take place is someone that deserves to be talked about on the Senate floor," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Tuesday. [Emphasis added]
Reid seems to be setting things up to go after what I believe is one of the most disturbing facts about Alberto Gonzales (whose history includes executing injustice), namely his advocacy of policies consistent with tyranny.
Yes, that's right, I said Gonzales advocates policies consistent with tyranny.
Think about it: Gonzales' legal briefs arguing that Presidential statements shielding torturers from arrest imply that the President is above the law, or that the President himself IS the law; that sovereignty and law emanate from him. Compare that to some definitions of tyranny. First, from the definition of tyranny in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
In classical thought, a corrupt form of monarcy in which a person ruled in his own interest. More generally, the abuse of the state's coercive force in the absence of the rule of law.
This from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:
3 Arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power, cruel or oppressive action or behavior; an instance of this
And the Declaration of Independence, in setting making the argument that "the history of the Present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states," lays out "to a candid world" several examples of proof, beginning with:
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
The founding fathers, having read their Paine and Montesquieu, knew that tyranny had to be resisted or prevented by countervailing power within the body politic and the government. Of course, with the current composition of Congress, there's little chance that the Democrats can directly prevent Bush and the Republicans from achieving their goals without some dissension within the Republican ranks. As disgusting as Gonzales' professional record may be, there's no indication that Republicans intend to join the Democrats and reject his nomination for Attorney General. There's also little to suggest that should Gonzales be rejected that Bush's next nomination would be any better. As hard as it may be to believe, Gonzales may actually be an improvement over Ashcroft and no worse than whoever would come after him. Therefore, this is a case where a filibuster may not serve much good.
Although Gonzales will be confirmed, Reid and the Democrats are doing the right thing and will probably achieve two small but imporatant success from the proceedings. Under the Constitution, only Congress can write laws, and it's not the prerogative of the President to abide by only those laws he finds acceptable. It's clear that Bush would like to ignore laws he finds inconvenient or constraining, and he stocks his retinue with people who indulge his desires. (By the way, Schumer's reference to Gonzales as a "blind loyalist" seems like an intentional double entendre.) But by drawing out the confirmation process to draw attention to Gonzales' key role in justifying the repudiation of the rule of law in favor of Presidential diktat, Reid and the Senate Democrats are not only doing a service to fellow Democrats who desire a muscular opposition party willing to inflict wounds on their partisan adversaries. Reid and the Senate Democrats are serving the interests of the entire country by upholding the Senate's responsibility to exercise its power and liberty to approve or reject the nominations of the executive. Democrats should be proud, and everyone opposed to tyranny should be thankful.