pageok
pageok
pageok
Questions for Harold Koh:

Julian Ku has a series of questions Harold Koh should have to answer before he is confirmed. I generally believe the Senate should be deferential to a President's nominees, but I also believe that the confirmation process should serve to inform the public about the type of administration a President is putting together. So I hope some Senator asks Koh these questions, and I look forward to hearing the answers.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Newsweek Previews Debate Over Koh:
  2. Questions for Harold Koh:
martinned (mail) (www):
There are some cool exam questions in there...
4.9.2009 9:55pm
David Welker (www):

I also believe that the confirmation process should serve to inform the public about the type of administration a President is putting together


I think it makes some sense for the Senate to be deferential to the President (although probably not as deferential as Adler), especially for non-judicial political nominees and especially for the President's cabinet.

But, I think the primary purpose of hearings is to enable the Senate to "advise and consent" not inform the general public of the "type of administration" the President is putting together.
4.9.2009 10:01pm
Cityduck (mail):
I don't see anything wrong with these questions.

However, I think it should be pointed out that Koh is being nominated to the position of legal advisor, not to a position as a policy maker or even that of a judge. Ku's concern, and really the handwringing by conservatives in general (except notable exceptions like Olson), especially Ku's concern about the "waves" Koh could make with the Democrats in control of the Legislative branch, seem overstated if not panicky.
4.9.2009 10:04pm
RPT (mail):
I see Harold Koh has replaced Bill Ayers as the danger du jour.
4.9.2009 10:47pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
1. If anyone wants to get those questions answered, go to one of Koh's public appearances and ask them on video then upload his response to video sharing sites. Or, encourage others to form a local group to do that.

2. In addition to int'l legal issues, how about asking Koh about something here at home that's he supports? NewHaven began giving ID cards to everyone including those here illegally, and Koh threw his support behind that plan. That encouraged a web of illegal and shady activity, such as banks profiting from illegal activity, with a portion of their proceeds then donated to politicians who looked the other way when it came to enforcing our laws. Yet, he couldn't see any problems with NewHaven's scheme. Someone should go walk him through exactly what he supports.
4.9.2009 11:03pm
sputnik (mail):
to paraphrase John Stewart, defeat tastes like a crap taco and right wing loons better learn to enjoy the taste.
4.10.2009 12:16am
Sarcastro (www):
RPT have you ever seen them in the same room together at the same time? I'm just saying...
4.10.2009 1:00am
ruuffles (mail) (www):

NewHaven began giving ID cards to everyone including those here illegally

*cough* federalism *cough*

(yes, New Haven is a city but presumably CT didn't preempt them)
4.10.2009 9:25am
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
That's nice, and I'm sure Yale's support for a corrupt city leadership enabling illegal activity was all over deep legal issues and not just misplaced "liberalism". BTW, there are other things about this issue I haven't covered, such as the possibility that the mayor might have a financial stake in the matter. And, the city worker who pushed the scheme used to head a non-profit in that city that helped a foreign government pass out their IDs to those here illegally, a scheme that helps that foreign government profit from illegal activity here in the U.S.

All of that is related to this wider issue.

And, Harold Koh helped.
4.10.2009 1:43pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.