Perhaps the Republicans just want to delay the swearing in of the attorney-general long enough to give Bush and Cheney enough time to flee the country after turning over the keys to the White House. Or perhaps they are simply hypocritical jackasses who put party politics ahead of running the country responsibly.

It will be more symbolic to hold them on MLK B'day...

long enough to give Bush and Cheney enough time to flee the country N. Wells

After that report last week blaming Bush and Co. for torture, I suspect they won't be doing too much travel outside the US. Okay, unless the country is occupied by US troops.

"I trust that with this additional time to prepare, they will cooperate in proceeding promptly to Committee and Senate consideration of the historic Holder nomination as Democrats did for President Bush."

Oh, that's so cute...

Republicans liked to bring up the fact that we're at war when promoting quick confirmation of Bush's nominees.
IOKI...this isn't even fun anymore.

but I like to think Leahy has given an inch, he won't give up a mile.

wanna bet.

C'mon Chuck. It's time to kick Lucy where the sun don't shine!! And do it now, blockhead!!

They ain't gonna be over the hangover on Jan 15 any more than they would have been on Jan 9. And, given that on Jan 20th they'll all be drowning their sorrows *again*, Jan 26th is, probably, too early also. St Valentine's Day, now... Maybe.

"I trust that with this additional time to prepare, they will cooperate in proceeding promptly to Committee and Senate consideration of the historic Holder nomination as Democrats did for President Bush."
-------------------------------
I can't imagine why anyone would who had seen them work before.

"but I like to think Leahy has given an inch, he won't give up a mile."

On what basis can you believe that Leahy won't follow the Reid model and CAVE to the rethugnicans on every damn thing...

I am still waiting for any dumbocrap in the Senate to grow a pair of balls, but not counting on it!

Leahy should tell them that "You've got 6 weeks to get your affairs in order, wind down your office staffs, and gather your passports"---because the only legitimate reason to delay hearings and confirmation is because the ReThugs have something to hide.

A whole lot of something, at that. Methinks Specter, Grassley, Kyl, and Coburn might be much more deeply involved in the Bush Crime Syndicate than your average rank-and-file Republican has been led to believe.

The cliche, "nicht GOPer---NICHT GOPer!!! should begin about the time Holder starts going after these witless wonders....

Does anyone have the quick answer to why the Senate Committee could hold hearings on Obama's nominees before Obama even becomes president? Someone asked on some blog (I forget which one), and I had no idea what the answer was.

Does anyone have the quick answer to why the Senate Committee could hold hearings on Obama's nominees before Obama even becomes president? -- Alan, @ 17:59

Not that I *know*, really, but I'd think the reason is so that he can hit the ground running. And there's no reason not to; after all, the Senate debating the nominations will -- with the possible exception of the Minn seat, if they still haven't resolved the Coleman/Franken race -- be of the new (post Nov 4th) composition. That is, people who assemble after the New Year's (Jan. 6th?) will be the same people who will be working with him (or against him) once he goes through the Inauguration hoo-hah.

Why agree to any extension at all? Why are the Dems, once again, allowing the rethugs to call the tune?

This is the definition of insanity. Dems keep acting honorably and rethugs keep kicking them in the face.

Leahy's response should have been "No extensions. You've known that the date was Jan. 9. If you can't get your shit together by then - too bad. Now, fuck off."

@exlibra: What you say makes sense as a reason why it's a good idea to schedule hearings early. The interesting question to my mind is why it's legally possible. If Obama isn't actually president yet, how can he have already nominated people, officially speaking? Isn't he on some level just saying "these are the people I'm going to nominate"?

Can you imagine....if there were one Republican and ninety-nine Democrats in the Senate, the one would rule the world.

It makes one wonder if Darwin was really right....by any interpretation of the survival of the species, the Democrats would be extinct by now. Or maybe they really are, and all these senators are actually Republicans in Democrat's clothing.

I had the fond and foolish hope that when the Democrats achieved an overwhelming majority they would stop allowing Karl Rove and the GOP to dictate terms. Silly me.

The interesting question to my mind is why it's legally possible. If Obama isn't actually president yet,[...] -- micah, @18:28

Common sense issues I can cope with (if, sometimes, barely). Legal ramifications... I'm clueless. *Nor* can I say what the "traditional" approach is; until I began to notice the extent of Bush's fubars (sometime around '02) I hadn't been paying much attention. Certainly not to individual cabinet appointments or when they took place.

It's legal because the Senate can confirm in any damn way it pleases. The constitution does not require that hearings only be held on nominees of sitting presidents. It doesn't require that hearings be held at all. It's up to the Senate to determine its rules of "advise and consent".

The purpose of the hearings is to give senators some basis for voting. They can then vote to confirm, effective as of any date they choose. As long as that date is after Obama becomes president, everything works out.

Imagine if instead of holding hearings on the nominee, they said "Hey, folks, we'll just sit over here in this room and talk to and about this idea that So-and-so might become Secretary of Weasel Diseases. Nothing official mind you, of course." And then, 17 seconds after he's inaugurated, Obama nominates So-and-so to be Secretary of Weasel Diseases, and the senators, on the basis of their understanding partially informed by those informal discussions, vote to confirm him one minute later. That's clearly all legal, neh?

All they're doing differently from that is voting in advance to say that 17 seconds after Obama becomes president , So-and-so has official federal oversight of all weasel diseases. Oh, and they're using formal rules instead of informal ones to talk about it, but what the heck, they use formal rules to talk about National Head Cheese Month, it's their nature, they can't help it.

Hasn't every president named his cabinet choices prior to inauguration? Why is it suddenly problematic that Obama is doing exactly what every other president since at least Nixon (if not earlier) had done?

One question for Holder will be why is it wrong to sell a senate seat and OK to sell a pardon? These hearings will be rich. Presidents always get into trouble when their "friends" are in the AG office and they can't say "no" Do we have to do this again? Eric Holder would be a great Presidential Counsel but "pardon me" doesn't he have a problem saying "no" to the guy in the Oval Office and didn't we just do that?

If it were up to me, DMZDave, Holder would answer "Senator, once again, as you were stating your question, my attention was focused on more important matters. However, as the minority's recent electoral performance renders the Senator's concerns irrelevant in any case, out of respect for the committee's time I won't request that the question be restated. Just put me down for another 'I can't recall.'"

Holder's phrasing will differ, but his testimony will be functionally equivalent. I wouldn't bother watching.