Showing posts with label senate judiciary committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senate judiciary committee. Show all posts

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Pat Leahy: New Justice to Be Confirmed by August

By GottaLaff

Is this anything like health care reform legislation being completed by summer, er, fall, er, before Christmas, er, in March?

I'm sure we're all looking forward to the kindly old white Congress-gentlemen on the right side of the aisle reaching out to their brethren in a grand gesture of bipartisanship, coming together as one to confirm their president's Supreme Court nominee:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee predicted Sunday that a new Supreme Court justice would be confirmed before Senators leave town for the August recess.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Dawn Johnsen Approved by Judiciary Committee

By GottaLaff

http://www.moonbattery.com/dawn-johnsen.jpg

YES! Yesyesyes!

In a party line vote today, President Obama's choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is the second time that Johnsen, who was first nominated more than a year ago, has been approved by the committee.

"The woman who could nail Bush" gets approval... again.

Still waiting for my incredibly unreliable electric company to shut the juice off, so I am thrilled to get this post up before they do!

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Leahy To Hold Hearing On Free Pass To Yoo And Bybee

By GottaLaff

http://my.pclink.com/~rlovgren/torture.gif

I was in tears yesterday when I heard the outrageous news about John Yoo and Jay Bybee wriggling out from under a prison sentence for their part in legalizing torture.

But there is good news. It comes from Senator Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Commitee:

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to examine the Office of Professional Responsibility Report on the Office of Legal Counsel, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced today. The report was released to Congress today.

The hearing will be held Friday, February 26, at 10:00 a.m. Witnesses will be announced in the coming days, and the hearing will be webcast live online.


I will be watching.

One hearing won't do it, but maybe, possibly, hopefully it will open the door to much more... at the very least, disbarment.

More details here.

********

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.H/t: VNDNBRG

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

BREAKING: Senate Judiciary Committee approves Judge Sotomayor

By GottaLaff

Just a few minutes ago, Sotomayor was approved by a vote of 13-6:

The Senate Judiciary Committee this morning endorsed Sonia Sotomayor to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court on a largely partisan vote that sends her historic nomination to the full Senate for a final decision on her confirmation.

The 13 to 6 vote came nearly two weeks after the committee's members grilled Sotomayor for 2 ½ days, eliciting answers that betrayed little indication of how the nominee, an appellate judge for the past 11 years, would rule on the most significant issues that come before the nation's highest court.

Sotomayor is President Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court and would become the court's first Hispanic and its third female member. In choosing her in May, the president emphasized her Horatio Alger-like life story, rising from a poor childhood with a widowed mother in a Bronx housing project to attend two Ivy League universities, eventually becoming a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that the full Senate probably will not begin debate on Sotomayor's confirmation until next week, although the specific schedule has not been determined. [...]

Graham, the only Republican to join Democrats in voting to send Sotomayor's nomination to the full Senate, said, "I would not have chosen her, but I understand why President Obama did." Graham called her "left of center but certainly within the mainstream. . . She can be no worse than Souter from our point of view," he said, referring to conservatives' view of David H. Souter, the retiring court member she would replace, who was appointed by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush.

Graham said his decision to support her was motivated, in part, by an effort to end the partisan fighting that has characterized some judicial nominations in recent years, when Senate Democrats filibustered several of President George W. Bush's most controversial candidates for lower federal courts. "We came perilously close to damaging an institution of the judiciary that has held this country together in different times."

"The filibusters that were going on a few years ago were historic in nature," Graham said, predicting that their continuation would "over time drive good men and woman away from wanting to be judges," rendering the judicial branch "just an extension of politics in another form."

The law, Graham said, "should be a quiet place, where even the most unpopular could have a shot. No way you can win an election but in the court you might have a shot." He also said that Sotomayor was qualified to serve on the Supreme court and said that, if, as the first Latina member, she "will inspire young women, particularly Latina women, to seek a career in the law, that would be a good thing." [...]

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) said, "These hearings have come little more than theater."

Live Streaming Video- Senate Committee Votes On Sotomayor




The Senate Judiciary Committee meets this morning to consider the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to join the Supreme Court.

With Democrats holding a 12-7 majority on the committee -- and at least one Republican senator, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), expected to vote in favor -- she should easily move past this hurdle.

Assuming it's a 13-6 vote in favor of Sotomayor, it's interesting to note that John Roberts passed through the Judiciary committee on a 13-5 vote.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Kyl Threatens GOP Boycott of Sotomayor Hearing

By GottaLaff


How productive. What are they, like five years old?
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told Roll Call yesterday that he and his Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee may boycott Judge Sotomayor’s hearings if Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) does not cave to right-wing demands to delay the hearings:

“As the hearing time approaches we will evaluate whether we can make that deadline,” Kyl said, explaining that if Republicans do not feel they can adequately question Sotomayor they will try to meet with Leahy to make a plea for more time.

However, Kyl, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, did not explicitly rule out the use of delay tactics, including a Republican boycott of the confirmation hearings, if an accommodation cannot be made.

But Kyl is not entitled to any more accommodations than what he has already received. Far from expediting Sotomayor’s confirmation process, Leahy set a schedule which is virtually identical to that enjoyed by Bush appointee John Roberts [...]

Earlier this week, all seven GOP members of the Judiciary Committee signed a letter demanding that Sotomayor complete a series of irrelevant or even impossible tasks before her nomination may be considered.
And then they took a milk-and-cookies break, had nap time, and learned how to tie the laces on their big boy shoes.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

GOP chief counsel on Senate Judiciary Committee: Gay marriage=pedophilia

By GottaLaff

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/anti-same-sex-marriage-2.gif
The Party of No, the Backward Party, the Party of Bigots, the Ignorant Party, the Party of Homophobes... need I go on? Because I'm angry enough to do that. Oh, I could go on all day:
Last week, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) named William Smith as the chief counsel for the GOP on the Senate Judiciary Committee. David Ingram of Legal Times reports today that Smith recently compared support for same-sex marriage to support for pedophilia. In a blog post that has now been taken down, Smith responded to former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt’s speech to the Log Cabin Republicans by writing that he wondered “if next week Schmidt will take his close minded stump speech to a NAMBLA meeting. For those unfamiliar with NAMBLA, the acronym is for North American Man Boy Love Association.” Smith also compared same-sex marriage to bestiality.
Party of Bottom Feeders, the Sphincter Party....

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Olbermann interviews Sen. Whitehouse on torture hearings

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Russ Feingold- The memos Cheney wants declassified say nothing



From Jessalyn Radack's live blog of the hearings on Kos-

10:31 Senator Russ Feingold: the former vice president is misleading the American people. Feingold says he has seen the memos Cheney is talking about and much besides, and nothing suggests any gain from the torture. Feingold wants our country to "return to the rule of law." He supports an "independent commission of inquiry as Senator Leahy has proposed."
Video via Think Progress.

Top FBI Agent Will Detail Failures Of Enhanced Interrogation, Contradict Claim That It Worked


Greg has alot more, including an outline of Soufan's testimony. Wonder how much time this will get on the cablers? You can stream the hearing here.

A top FBI interrogator who witnessed CIA enhanced interrogations firsthand will offer a detailed explanation at a Senate hearing today of the ways the techniques were ineffective and even counterproductive — and will directly contradict claims that they extracted high-value information, according to an advance copy of his testimony.

(snip)

The use of the techniques “taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the end game, and diminishes our moral high ground in a battle that is impossible to win without first capturing the hearts and minds around the world,” he will say. “It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaeda.”

Soufan, an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005, is set to testify today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

VIDEO: Cheney May Be Willing To Testify Under Oath About Torture Program

By GottaLaff



Of course, this doesn't mean he'd actually tell the, you know, truth, no matter what he claims now:

SCHIEFFER: Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on this broadcast recently. And I said, do you intend to ask the former vice president to come up? And he said if he will testify under oath. Would you be willing to testify under oath?

CHENEY: I’d have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent we were setting. But certainly I wouldn’t be out here today if I didn’t feel comfortable talking about what we’re doing publicly.

Speaking of setting precedent, former Vice Precedent Dick (emphasis on vice), you and the rest of BushCo set a doozy. The United States of America, under your watch, began using torture, covering yourselves by concocting a few self-serving, underhanded, so-called "legal" opinions. Now some of us are doing whatever we can to UN-set that precedent.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Jeff Sessions: Republicans should be wary of filibustering court nominee

By GottaLaff

Sniff, sniff! What's that I smell? A Rushpublic being reasonable? Consistent even? No way... really?

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee says he's inclined against using a filibuster to block President Barack Obama's nominee to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama said a deal four yours ago that averted filibusters against some of former President George W. Bush's judicial nominees established a "standard" that shouldn't be discarded except in unusual circumstances.

How could we have been so wrong about him? How could we have misjudged him so? How could we have---::scre-e-eching brakes::

Sessions, however, didn't entirely rule out a filibuster.


But why would Jeffy even hint at efforts to attempt rational human beingitude?

Sessions said that Obama assured him in a brief telephone conversation Tuesday that he was not planning to nominate a "bomb-thrower."

So terrorists are out. No Supreme Court Justice Richard Reid. Whew! What a relief. Back goes the Valium into the ol' medicine cabinet.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Sen. Jeff Sessions Will Take Specter's Spot on Judiciary

By GottaLaff

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01rif6IbNafiy/340x.jpg
Because conservative organizations need their special someone:
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) will take over as ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee "after striking a deal with his more senior colleagues over the weekend," sources confirm to The Hill.

Under terms of the deal, Sessions will serve as ranking member until the 112th Congress, when he will take over the ranking member post on the Senate Budget Committee. Current Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH) is retiring at the end of the 111th Congress.
Think Progress adds:
In 2005, Sessions spoke out against the use of the filibuster to block President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees — will he do the same for President Obama?
My money's on "no".

Friday, March 13, 2009

Leahy Vows to Name Names if Obama's Nominees Are Delayed

By GottaLaff

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2008/01-08/vote-slogan-thumb.gif
Watch out... Patrick Leahy is growling and pawing the ground:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is warning his colleagues that he will shine a light on any of them who try to hold up a nominee of President Barack Obama.

Leahy, speaking on the Senate floor Wednesday, criticized the use of anonymous "holds" and other tactics that allow a senator to delay a nomination without revealing that he or she is the one doing so. Any senator for any reason can place a hold on a nominee and thereby prevent the formal debate and vote from being scheduled.

"Today, however, there will be no more secret and anonymous Republican holds. Any effort to oppose the president's nominees -- executive or judicial -- will have to withstand public scrutiny. There will be no more anonymous holds," Leahy said in his prepared remarks.

His stance could have the effect of speeding up some of Obama's nominees, including those for the Department of Justice who have faced procedural delays. [...]

Last week, Senate Republicans -- who championed up-or-down votes during the Bush administration -- sent a letter to Obama advising that they are prepared to block votes on nominees when they see fit.

There are several methods that Leahy could use to try to identify publicly a senator who delays a nominee. He could make a request on the Senate floor to consider the nomination, possibly forcing a voice objection by a senator who placed a hold.

He could also name a senator who -- under what's known as the "blue slip" tradition -- has not given consent to consider a nominee from the senator's home state.

In the face of a possible filibuster, Democrats could move to cut off debate, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., did Monday with Ogden's nomination, but doing so requires lengthy procedures and at least 60 votes in favor.

How dare the Democrats force the Rushpublics' hand!? What?! That's unheard of!

That would make them all accountable and stuff. And that's undemocratically unpatriotically treasonous! Only Democrats should be held accountable for their votes, never Rushpubs.

There. I've said it. Someone had to. Damn Democratic zealots.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Senate will advance torture commission; "This is going to be big."

By GottaLaff

Someone Tweeted this to me, and I went right over, and voila! News:

The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to move forward with a commission to investigate torture during the Bush administration. Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., told Salon Tuesday that his panel would soon announce a hearing to study various commission plans. His staff said the announcement could come as early as Wednesday.

While Michigan Democrat Rep. John Conyers and North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones drafted a bill to create a commission to review abuse of war powers during the Bush administration, Leahy's Senate commission would represent the first concrete steps forward toward a broad review of U.S. torture since 9/11.

Spearheading Senate efforts to establish a torture commission is Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. As a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, Whitehouse is privy to information about interrogations he can't yet share. Still, regarding a potential torture commission, he told Salon, "I am convinced it is going to happen." In fact, his fervor on the issue was palpable. When asked if there is a lot the public still does not know about these issues during the Bush administration, his eyes grew large and he nodded slowly. "Stay on this," he said. "This is going to be big."

Let's hope this leads to more than just a lot of talk.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Sen. Leahy Proposes ‘Truth Commission’ for Justice Department

By GottaLaff

http://img40.picoodle.com/img/img40/9/7/12/f_6483Spongebm_98392a9.jpg
Remember truth? I do, vaguely. It had something to do with not telling lies, if I'm not mistaken:

Sen. Patrick Leahy, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposed establishing an independent “truth and reconciliation commission” to investigate several allegations of wrongdoing at the Justice Department during the Bush administration.

Inhale that for a second. I'll wait. Come on, you can do it: De-e-e-ep breath. Hold it. ... Hold it... longer... you know, as you would if you were taking a hit of... truth! What did you think I meant? Who do you think I am, Michael Phelps?

Sorry, you can exhale now. Your lungs are now truth-filled. Wasn't that refreshing? Are you high on life yet?

The Vermont Democrat said the commission should investigate the department’s once-secret warrantless wiretapping program, the politically motivated firings of some U.S. attorneys and the department’s highly controversial memos on the treatment of terrorism detainees.
Time for another hit.

Anyone got any Twinkies?

Leahy said his proposal marked a middle ground between prosecuting former officials in President George W. Bush’s administration and doing no investigations at all.

The truth commission should have subpoena power and witnesses would not face charges except if they commit perjury, he said. “Rather than vengeance, we need a fair minded pursuit of what actually happened,” he said.

Oh man, what just happened? This turned this into a totally bad trip. Whoa. Seriously. I'm so bummed. What was I thinking? Commissions are meaningless. And toothless ones are even more meaningless.

Anyone got a 750 ml bottle of Patron Silver and some limes?

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Holder's on his way to becoming Attorney General

By GottaLaff

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090115/holder-confirmation/images/502af8c8-e54e-46be-886c-1a4e847e2146.jpg
Let the Republicans "flex their muscles". In the end, Holder will sail through:
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to send the nomination of Attorney General-designate Eric Holder to the full Senate.

The committee's Democratic members unanimously supported Holder; GOP Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma voted no.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Republicans to Holder: "Promise not to prosecute BushCo, 'k?"

By GottaLaff


Can the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee be any more inappropriate?

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney and former Rhode Island attorney general criticized Republican members of the committee for delaying a vote on Holder's nomination.

"Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have asked Eric Holder to make a commitment, before he is even confirmed, that he will not prosecute any Bush administration officials for their involvement in acts of torture during the last administration," Whitehouse said in a news release. "Anyone familiar with the criminal justice system -- especially those with experience as prosecutors or judges -- should know that a prosecutor should make no determination about who to prosecute before he or she has all the facts, and particularly not in response to legislative pressure."

Promise you won't bust the Bush Crime Family for breaking the law, committing war crimes and stuff like torturing and junk, 'k Eric? If you sweartogod you won't do that, we'll be your bff*.

The GOP has lost all sense of reality, utterly and completely. It's just one big delusional sack of mental illness now.

*best friends forever

Recent Posts