I let the conflict over the Mukasey nomination slip without comment, but wanted to get some links up for posterity. His nomination raised some important constitutional issues, both having to do with the extent of executive power and the ability, and role, of the justice department in restraining him.
The dominant issue was torture, whether we allow it, whether water-boarding is in fact torture and if that meant that we in fact tortured suspects--contrary to custom. Mukasey fudged, which upset activists and led at least one left leaning group in the Democratic Party to call for the removal of Democrats who supported him.
For me, the more interesting part of this dispute was clarifying Congress' role in clarifying torture and making explicitly clear what can and cannot be allowed. That has never been done before, all that had been required was for the president to abide by the Geneva Conventions, but that is apparently not enough anymore. Moves are now underway to make that clear, we'll see if that passes. Here's the legal background. If you've been following the news you know that his nomination barely passed due to this controversy.
The less dominant, though ultimately more important issue had to do with the role of the attorney general, and the justice department overall, in overseeing the executive branch.
Mukasey's background as a judge gave him credibility as a potentially independent force, especially in comparison with his predecessor's background as a presidential adviser. Gonzales' apparent willingness to allow the justice department to be a tool for partisan purposes was his downfall, and is Mukasey's task.
You can link to Senate testimony here and here.
The ranks of the Justice Department are apparently dangerously thin. He'll be there for little more than a year. He has much to do.
