A December 12 Associated Press article on “the back-and-forth over when to hold a confirmation hearing for Eric Holder, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general,” quoted several Republican senators objecting to a plan by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to hold a hearing on January 8. The AP quoted ranking Republican Arlen Specter's (PA) assertion that “it seems to me not realistic or fair to begin hearings before Jan. 26.” The AP further reported of the Republicans, “Peppered throughout their protests on the Senate floor was the word 'precedent' -- as in, not setting one with regard to confirmation hearings for Obama's other picks.” However, the article did not include Leahy's or any other Democrat's response.

In a December 10 letter addressed to Specter, Leahy pointed to the confirmation hearings for previous attorney general nominees -- including nominees whose confirmation hearings began before the president-elect was inaugurated -- as evidence that there is precedent for holding hearings in less time following the president-elect's announcement of his intention to nominate than Leahy has provided in the case of Holder, whose designation Obama announced on December 1. Leahy also noted in the letter that he “honored [Specter's] request and asked Secretary Rice to facilitate [his] 14-day trip to 10 countries from December 25 through January 7.”

In his letter to Specter, Leahy wrote:

After the contentious 2000 presidential election, I also proceeded promptly to hold the hearing on the designation by President-elect Bush of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. John's designation was not formally announced until December 22, but I held his hearing 25 days later. I do not think President-elect Obama should be penalized for proceeding promptly with transition and designating his Attorney General selection three weeks before President Bush had.

I am sure you recall during your first year in the Senate how promptly Chairman Thurmond proceeded on the designation of William French Smith to be Attorney General at the beginning of the Reagan administration. The Committee completed its consideration of President Reagan's lawyer to be the Attorney General of the United States with a vote on January 16, even though he was not designated until December 11. We have known about Eric's designation officially for 10 days, and unofficially for more than three weeks. The Committee would have to vote on January 6, the first day of the new Congress, to approximate that timeline.

President Carter's first Attorney General, Griffin Bell, was not designated until December 18, yet his hearing and Committee consideration were completed by January 19. Approximating that timeline would have the Committee voting before the new Congress even comes into session.

Each of the above attorney general nominees that Leahy cited had confirmation hearings that began before the president-elect who nominated them was inaugurated:

• Attorney General John Ashcroft's confirmation hearing began on January 16, 2001; President George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001.

• As Leahy noted, Attorney General William French Smith's confirmation hearing began on January 16, 1981. President Ronald Reagan was inaugurated on January 20, 1981.

• As Leahy noted, Attorney General Griffin Bell's confirmation hearing began on January 19, 1977. President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated on January 20, 1977.

From the December 12 AP article:

The back-and-forth over when to hold a confirmation hearing for Eric Holder, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general, isn't simply a matter of saving a date on the Senate calendar. It's an early test of strength for minority Republicans on the eve of one-party Democratic rule in Washington.

Even with a Democrat in the White House and strong Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Republicans are making clear that they won't be ignored -- and warning Obama that he shouldn't expect swift confirmation of Holder or any other Cabinet choices.

“It's not a coronation,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said of Holder's confirmation hearings.

To anyone who understands political lexicon, his comments and those of a parade of other Judiciary Committee Republicans were clear warning shots fired from a fading Congress toward the Democratic leaders of the next one -- for the benefit of anyone who believes one-party rule will mean quick or easy governing.

We may be a vanquished minority, Republicans are saying, but we still have power. Any senator can block a confirmation, a power that several Republicans highlighted by saying they had no “intent” or “desire” -- currently -- to invoke.

The matter at hand was the announcement that Holder's confirmation hearings would be held Jan. 8, the week that the 111th Congress convenes. Republicans believed that was a feeler by the incoming Democratic majority to see how fast Obama's Cabinet picks could be confirmed.

Holder, who was deputy attorney general for President Bill Clinton, is one of Obama's more controversial picks. He's widely respected by lawyers in and out of government, and Republicans have shown no inclination to block his confirmation. But he's expected to face tough questioning over Clinton's 2001 pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, which Holder supported.

Rich's ex-wife, Denise, was a prolific Democratic donor.

Holder later publicly apologized and said that he would have opposed the pardon if he had paid more attention to the case.

Republicans this week said there is good reason to spend time reviewing Holder's qualifications, especially given the recent politicization that demoralized the Justice Department under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The agency has major responsibilities, including the balance between tools to fight terrorism and the protection of civil liberties.

“As I look at this matter, it seems to me not realistic or fair to begin hearings before Jan. 26,” said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said mid-January might work.

More time, of course, also would mean more opportunity to talk about and review publicly that unpleasant chapter in Holder's career -- and by extension, the troubled tenure of the Democrats' last president.

But insisting on the postponement served another Republican purpose as well. Peppered throughout their protests on the Senate floor was the word “precedent” -- as in, not setting one with regard to confirmation hearings for Obama's other picks.

Kyl, a member of the Judiciary Committee who also is the vote-counting Republican whip, said in his floor speech that a raft of other high-level Justice officials would need confirmation hearings and that there should be no rush.

“I hope if we set the right precedent here with the attorney general himself that these other (designees) will be considered in due time and appropriately,” Kyl said, “and we won't have to each time argue that there is an insufficient opportunity to conduct the kind of examination that would be necessary for positions as important as these.”

Asked later if he was referring just to Justice Department posts or other nominations as well, Kyl said:

“You don't want to start a bad practice here, is what I'm saying.”

Just with Justice Department nominees?

“No, that would apply to everybody,” Kyl said. “But as a Judiciary Committee member, I specifically mentioned some key positions there.”

“I wouldn't want the chairman of the committee to think I could just ram some of these through,” he added.