Although the deference argument makes sense for Presidential advisors the Attorney General is a special case in which the deference argument falls apart. The AG is the top law enforcement official in the land and as such needs to be more independent of Presidential influence than the other cabinet positions.

Please look what a sycophantic AG has wrought before giving President Bush any leeway on his choice of AG.

Mukasey should be vigorously vetted and if he doesn't pass muster then he should not be confirmed. Zero deference should be given to President Bush on this pick.

Funny, I recall hearing almost this exact argument about John Roberts.

Having been burned after the Roberts appointment, I would not want to be burned again. With respect to AG transplants, I prefer rejection.

Lots of folks around my law office in NYC have personal experience before Judge Mukasey, and everyone knows his reputation among the local bar. To a man, regardless of ideological stance, they all think he will be a great AG.

I realize this may not set the bar all that high, but I think he will easily be the best member of this administration.

'[I]it seems clear that Mukasey is far better than anyone could reasonably expect of this administration."

I agree with that statement as an assertion of truth. But you seem to use it as an argument for Democrats to vore to confirm (which, sadly, they predictably will, while competing to proclaim Mukasey's wonderfulness). Absent secret deals, Mukasey appears far better than Ted Olson. And Mussolini was less evil than Hitler on my personal evilometer; if you absolutely had to accept a fascist dictator, you'd probably choose Benito. I still wouldn't vote for either of them.

Marlowe--I don't understand that line of reasoning at all. Somebody really does have to serve as AG. If the Democrats reject him, then what? Some arch-wingnut serves as AG. This accomplishes what, exactly?

Does this open up a federal judgeship for the Bush administration to fill? Take a judge out who doesn't fully agree with the uber-president philosophy of the Bushes, replace him with someone who does?

If the Democrats reject him, then what? Some arch-wingnut serves as AG. This accomplishes what, exactly?

Is it really so much to ask that we not start endorsing his confirmation before the committee hearings even begin? An Acting AG is already in place; the DOJ, such as it is, is not going to crumble in the interim if Mukasey isn't in place by next Tuesday. Frankly, I would rather have an interim stonewaller in place than a Democratic Senate-approved stonewaller, and the whole point of these hearings ought to be to get him on the record saying that he will assist in ongoing investigations and not act as the President's personal counsel. Whether or not he's "fit" for the job in some general sense is kind of beside the point right now.

Does this open up a federal judgeship for the Bush administration to fill?

Not at all. He's currently retired.

What Aaron said.

Shouldn't the first discussion be about whether he would be a good AG, and only after we have a good view of his faults (which seems to be in the area of his views on presidential war powers) discuss what can be bought by approving him anyway. It seems to me that before you buy you know the costs. Perhaps having someone who is not saddled with the interim label would help Justice get back on its feet, but if he schemes with Bush to expand presidential powers is that worth it?
There is an institutional aversion to giving up powers once they have been gained. Even in the relatively short amount of time this guy would be allotted he could do a fair amount of damage.