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.

Glad to be Lindsey Graham's Friend

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 siging a different turn if this military officer were a partisan Republican. The other man mentioned, Mr. Guter is not incoherent just becasue 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 indepedence as a judge when dealing with the cases that are sure to come before the court in the interceeding 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 Jusitce 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 supoprters of Haynes is wrong because just the fact that he called someone that poisitively 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 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 sterering committee, than why mentionthis becasue it is not relevant except as a tool to say look here’s a liberal who worked against the Presidnet 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 dedcated civil servant with the ability to serve on the vourt, 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 becasue 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 recieve 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 becasue 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.

The Critics of Jim Haynes 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.

If a retired admiral says that Haynes was unwilling to listen to the opinion of the JAG lawyers then it has credibility becasue he worked inside with him. It also has credibility becasue there was a mini war between the civilian Defense Department attorneys and the JAGs. This battle over detainee treatment calminated in a report by the JAGs and an evntual rescinding of some of the original tactics by the Secretary of Defense. Haynes’ job was to advocate for the policy based on Defense Department standards not those of the Justice Department becasue the military fights the war and know its laws.

Haynes, as the chief lawyer for DoD, would have had exclusive control of the legal envirnment that led to abuses at Abu Ghraib. Signing memos that allowed for inhumane treatment of detainees and tactics short of death would have contributed to this situation. Sexual humiliation did not have to appear on the list of approved tactics becasue anything short of death was approved.

Some of the decisions were not made by Haynes, but he could have stood up as a lawyer and said to whoever wanted to do these things, such as keeping people inperpetuity, that it couldn’t and shouldn’t be done.

Haynes was obliged to make sure the policy did not end up as it was in the first place. If he had done this he would be confirmed no problem. He may be an independent judge, but his involvement in the torture scandal and the memos is enough to disqualify him. It is also his job as Defense Department Counsel to argue for policies weather from Justice or not that are in keeping with the rules set down in the UCMJ, statutes, and treaties. He doesn’t get off the hook that easily.

I am sorry, I will take the word of admirals before I take the word of a law professor who had an arranged meeting with the nominee to discuss these issues in particular. The admirals worked with him at the time of the policy debate and the memo writing so they would have deeper insight into his true intent and mind. It is easy to show concern after the fact when you know you are being looked at for a court seat, but he may have showed no such concern at the time.

Lindsey Graham has been trying to prevent a vote on the merits because of the policy and the interest of the JAG lawyers not being listened to during the policy debate. Their concerns were completely ignored until we were caught with the abuses. Lindsey Graham is right, Haynes deserves to be blocked.

Response to “The Incoherence of Jim Haynes’ Critics” by Paul at PowerLineBlog

Accused of Ducking the Vote

A vote that shouldn’t be ducked

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.

Source: PowerLine Blog

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.

I do not agree that he is ducking the vote. He has counted the tea leaves and sees enough votes in Committee to approve the nomination and then on the floor to confirm him. The only way to prevent the battle over the policy at Guantonomo from heating up again is to block the nomination. This is a better course of action than participating in a filibuster which would be hypocritical.

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 anlyzes 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.

But going after Gonzales would have injured McCain’s attempt to cast himself as a friend of the White House. Blocking Haynes, McCain must assume, carries no cost. And perhaps it doesn’t. But a pattern of these sorts of cynical calculations might.”

I do not think that Mr. McCain’s calculation is a cynical or wrong. Mr. Haynes could have protested more when the subject was discussed in meetings or argued against the memo once he received it, but he did neither, just implementing it until caught.

Mr. Graham has always said that their was one nominee he could not support and I have known that this was Haynes because of his role in the torture scandal. Blocking him for not disputing the legal advice of the justice department is a good move because he supports breaking the law passed to ban torture and might still support arguments to do so and thus allow the President’s signing statement to prevail in any argument over torture rather than the statute. This is bad for the country and the military.

Haynes has had an otherwise stellar career, but this one blemish is serious enough to derail the nomination as it should be. It is a question of law and not ideology for them to hash out. We should not be promoting someone who supports the violation of law regardless of his prior service.

Today's Alito News

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 that the FoxNews audience agreed with.

Graham's Great Compromise: Nuclear Options and Judicial Filibusters

Last night Senator Lindsey Graham assisted 13 colleagues in brokering a compromise to move the Senate forward from the debate on judicial nominations and be able to do America's business. He would have been a "yes" vote if the vote to change the rules occured. However, we have averted the vote for now.

This move by Sen. Graham infuriated groups like Focus on the Family and their affiliates. They wanted all the judges and no compromise. They called the compromise disaterous. However, Graham felt that it was important so we could get back to the business of the Senate. He acknowledged that people back home would be upset for a while and then would be happy about what gets done.

There is anger at the base. Callers to call-in shows such as C-Span's Washington Journal are saying that they will not forget and that they beleive he is a different man than he was during the impeachment of President Clinton. I would contend however that he has changed only a little to fit his new role as senator which requires more bipartisan compromise.

During the impeachment he was not as mean as the other managers. He also would have preferred a censure to the trial. Graham also got one of the Articles of Impeachment thrown out becasue ethically and legally, evidence that could not be used in the court should not be used in a Cogressional trial proceeding. He was perfectly reasonable although slightly more partisan because the House of Representatives is designed to operate by absolute majority.

However, in his two years in the Senate he has grown and therefore I beleive that he is a wonderful Senator. He works with colleagues to get the business of the people done. He has been part of bipartisan groups on many issues: Social Security reform, health care issue, and now judicial nominations and filibusters.

The request I have for my fellow Republicans in Illinois and South Carolina is that we accept and honor his independent decision although we may not agree. I know he will keep standing up to the pressure groups and doing what is right for all of America. I feel strongly that if we cannot except his independence and respect his feelings about what is best for the country than we do not deserve to have him as one of our leaders.