ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û

Late Friday, Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein of confirming Judge Michael Mukasey for the attorney general post. And over the weekend, there's been a lot of chatter on the blogs.

The as the judge himself for not denouncing waterboarding. (Torture hasn't gotten this much attention since Abu Ghraib.)

Mukasey is even losing support from someone who was enthusiastic about his nomination before. Harper's blogger Scott Horton, who was , even after before his nomination,

I believe that Mukasey, as an individual, is exceptionally well qualified to serve as attorney general. I would approve the Mukasey who says he "personally" finds waterboarding abhorrent. But I am troubled by the "official" Mukasey who is being trotted out as something different. And I believe that the nation cannot, at this stage, accept the appointment of an attorney general who refuses to come clean on the torture issue.

In his , John Nichols calls for a do-over: "Mukasey's critics on the committee, led by Leahy and Feingold, should do everything in their power to re-frame the debate to focus on the broader question of whether a president can break the law - and on the nominee's entirely unacceptable answers to it."

Similarly, on Talking Points Memo, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called for Mukasey to promise to :

Before the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee completely cave-in to Bush, at minimum they should demand that Judge Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if war crimes have been committed. If Mukasey refuses he should be rejected. This, indeed, should be a pre-condition to anyone filling the post of Attorney General under Bush.

But back to torture. On Balkinization, Marty Lederman chides The Washington Post for which gives the Senate Judiciary Committee the thumbs-up for confirming Mukasey only if it bans torture by passing Senator Joe Biden's . It's a nice thought, but as Lederman points out, . Passing another is just an empty promise.

Kinda like the .