Is Feinstein the Democrats' Next Lieberman?

Sen. Feinstein's support for the Mukasey nomination is a big victory for the White House. (Getty Images

Feinstein, Lieberman, Mukasey, Schumer - can anyone tell me what these four have in common? Afterall, birds of a feather do flock together.

For the second time in recent months, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) on Friday confirmed that she will break ranks with a majority of her Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, in this case to confirm President Bush's nominee for attorney general.

Feinstein along with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), announced that she will support Michael B. Mukasey's nomination, virtually assuring his confirmation despite the nominee's controversial refusal to declare an interrogation technique called waterboarding to be an illegal form of torture.

The decision to back Bush's nominee sparked immediate outrage among the liberal anti-war "Netroots" community, many of whom had been pushing aggressively for the undecided Democrats on Judiciary to oppose Mukasey. Within minutes of the Schumer-Feinstein announcements, timed to be released at the same moment, the liberal blog Talking Points Memo blasted the news on its home page, while Democrats.com urged readers to refuse to give money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is chaired by Schumer.

Schumer's wavering on the issue was much debated and discussed over the past week, as his indecision was featured in profiles in The Washington Post, New York Times and insider publications like Roll Call and The Hill. Feinstein's role was just as pivotal and received nowhere near as much attention, but some think that will change.

Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, predicted short-term headaches for Schumer but long-term issues with the anti-war liberals for Feinstein, because it's her second major break from Democrats in the past three months. "The next Joe Lieberman for them is going to be Feinstein," Ornstein told Capitol Briefing, referring to Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, who has been effectively chased from the party for his strong support for the Iraq war.

Feinstein was just as critical as Schumer, who had originally recommended Mukasey to the White House, because in recent days the pair were essentially viewed inside the Capitol as their own voting bloc. They would either support Mukasey together or oppose him together, providing the key votes sealing his defeat.

With all nine Republicans on Judiciary likely to support the nominee, just one of the 10 Democrats needed to flip in order for him to be approved by the panel. Once the nomination is sent to the full Senate, it's virtually a sure thing, since all 49 Republicans and Lieberman -- Mukasey's law school classmate -- are likely votes in favor.

But neither Schumer nor Feinstein was willing to be the lone Democrat siding with committee Republicans, which would have created potentially an enormous political backlash focused on one senator. Their statements supporting Mukasey struck similar themes.

Feinstein said her support was based largely on the proposition that Bush would not nominate another attorney general, leaving in place a long-term acting attorney general not confirmed by the Senate: "Judge Mukasey is the best we will get and voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the administration to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and diminish effective oversight by Congress."

In early August Feinstein played the role of "Lone Democratic Ranger" when she supported U.S. Judge Leslie Southwick's confirmation to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans. She rejected allegations that he was racially insensitive in previous judicial rulings involving a racial slur, giving Southwick a 10-9 vote out of Judiciary.

"I don't believe he's a racist...I believe he's a good person," she told the committee.

For that vote, she was hailed by conservative activists who called it an "act of decency," while liberal activists said Southwick amounted to a "slap in the face" to minority voters.

On Tuesday morning, when she casts her vote in the Judiciary Committee in favor of Mukasey, Feinstein will at least have Schumer by her side to take some of the heat from outraged activists on the left.

Schumer, Feinstein back Mukasey

Of course! Was there really ever any question? It's the Jewish thing to do...

by Andrew Zajac - Nov 2, 207

Looks like Michael Mukasey will be the next Attorney General after all, many Democrats' misgivings about his unwillingness to declare waterboarding illegal notwithstanding.

A pair of key Senate Democrats, Diane Feinstein, of California, and Charles Schumer, of New York, announced this afternoon that they'll vote for Mukasey, giving him the votes he needs to win approval of the Judiciary Committee.

This can be looked at as a call made on the merits, but politically, the nods from Schumer and Feinstein also can be interpreted as meaning that Democrats still haven't figured out how to address issues like torture without appearing to be soft on national security.

The approval of key Democrats came a day after President Bush compared Democratic leaders stalling aspects of his security agenda, including the Mukasey confirmation, to appeasers who enabled Lenin and Hitler.

Reading between the many lines of his statement, one can sense Schumer's discomfiture.

The media-savvy senior senator from New York typically issues frequent, but very brief, sound bite-like statements on the issues of the day.

In this case, he's broken an uncharacteristically long silence with what for him is a torrent of prose:

SCHUMER STATEMENT SUPPORTING JUDGE MUKASEY TO BE NEXT U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

I will support Judge Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.

I have spent the last nine months doing everything I can to get new leadership at the Department of Justice and I believe the job will not be finished until we get a strong and independent Attorney General. I believe Judge Mukasey is that type of person. Should we reject him, it is almost certain that an acting, caretaker Attorney General will take office without the advice and consent of the Senate. Inevitably, that would enable those in this administration, who do not believe in the rule of law, and have done things that caused even former Attorney General Ashcroft to threaten resignation, to have the complete upper hand.

Only a strong and independent Attorney General can return the Justice Department to what it once was, and should always be. Under this administration, that nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping. The best we can hope for is someone who is independent, has integrity, will put rule of law first and, above all, will clean the stench of politicization out of the Justice Department. I believe Judge Mukasey will be that type of Attorney General.

This is an extremely difficult decision. When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice. Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice. However, Judge Mukasey, whose integrity and independence is respected even by those who oppose him, is far better than anyone could expect from this administration. He is recommended by and reminds me of Jim Comey, another Bush nominee who—while he didn’t agree with us on the issues—showed the kind of independence and integrity this department needs.

I would also like to say something about torture, particularly waterboarding. I deeply oppose it. I supported Senator Kennedy’s amendment in 2006 and am a co-sponsor of his bill in this congress. Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding as I hope it will.

This afternoon, I met with Judge Michael Mukasey one more time. I requested the meeting to address, in person, some of my concerns. The Judge made clear to me that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the President would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.

Judge Mukasey is a lawyer’s lawyer. He will not leap to quick judgments. When we want him to do so, such as on torture, we will be disappointed. But when he resists those in the administration who want quick and facile answers, so they can get their way, so they can roll over civil liberties and blot out separation of powers, it is they who will be disappointed.

I realize that, should he become Attorney General, Judge Mukasey and I will disagree on many issues. I have told him that I will battle just as fiercely against him as I did against previous Attorney Generals when we disagree.

These are troubling times at the Justice Department. We cannot afford or allow the department to languish and limp along for the next 14 months. I deeply esteem those who believe the issue of torture is so paramount that Judge Mukasey’s views on it should be the sole determinant of our vote. But I must respectfully disagree. The Justice Department is a shambles: politicized and demoralized. The belief and hope that Justice Mukasey, with his experience, independence and integrity, can restore the department motivates my vote.