Why is the Attorney General worth the time to fight for?  Abu "no express habeas corpus in the Constitution" Gonzales.

Jeralyn, TalkLeft.com, writes:

Many people think the role of Attorney General is simply to be the nation's "top cop," the chief criminal law enforcer. But it is much more. The role of the Attorney General is to serve as America's lawyer, in civil as well as criminal matters. He is not the President's lawyer. He is our lawyer.

The White House has its own legal counsel which is called "The Office of Counsel to the President".  From Wikipedia.org:

The Office of Counsel to the President was created in 1943, and is responsible for advising on all legal aspects of policy questions, legal issues arising in connection with the President's decision to sign or veto legislation, ethical questions, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest during employment and post employment. The Counsel's Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House contact for the Department of Justice.

This is why the Department of Justice is critical to having our system of jurisprudience be unbiased and apolitical. 

The attorney general nominee Judge Mukasey on torture has told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he is against, but he now states:

At one point during the hearings, he told Sen. Durbin: "It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else." In other words, waterboarding is torture when it rises to the level of torture (however torture might be defined) -- but the technique in and of itself does not necessarily constitute torture.

The ABA reports that even Senator Spector is troubled. 

I believe that if the American people really knew what waterboarding entailed (shown actual prisoners being waterboarded and not a reporter, Steve Harrigan, from Foxnews  calling it "not so bad") and that people were waterboarded in our system of interrogation camps for the Jack Bauer cold blooded murderer scenario- "Ticking Time Bomb" then there would be a great revulsion to Mr. Bush's policy of using torture techniques.

So, Judge Mukasey doesn't know the technique involved?  It is not necessary to know that because in his role as Attorney General he would be acting as an advisor to Mr. Bush, David Lubin writes:

However, Gonzales, Bybee, and their crew crossed a different ethical line. They were not acting as courtroom advocates but as legal advisers, with a different professional standard to which they needed to adhere. Model Rule 2.1, titled "Advisor," provides that "a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice." Legal advisers must play it straight, even where the "[l]egal advice [may] involve[] unpleasant facts and alternatives that a client may be disinclined to confront." Independence means saying what the law is—as mainstream lawyers and judges understand it—regardless of what the client wishes it to be. Candor requires lawyers with eccentric theories to warn their clients whenever their legal advice veers away from the mainstream. The torture lawyers betrayed both these principles with the advice they gave the White House.

As the Attorney General he would have broad sway of policy implementation and discretion at to what policies to enforce.

David Lubin continues:

But what happens when the client doesn't want candid advice? When the client says, in effect, "Give me a legal opinion saying I can do what I want to do"? Lawyers confront such requests every day—but if the lawyer does the client's bidding, she has crossed the fatal line from adviser to accomplice.

What cannot be clearer is that Judge Mukasey is against torture before he is for torture.

Why should Democrats vote to approve out of committee Judge Mukasey to the full Senate?  The New York Times reporter Philip Shenon writes:

Many Democratic lawmakers say privately that he is still likely to be confirmed, given the need for leadership in the Justice Department after months of turmoil.

What kind of reason is that?  This is capitulation to Mr. Bush who continues to send up unqualified people for administration posts.

Let our Senator Salazar know that we will support a primary challenge to him if he doesn't uphold his oath to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.