Judging from Bill Richardson’s statement on the Attorney General nominee…
“The next Attorney General must restore integrity and credibility to the Department of Justice and be an independent protector of the Constitution, not a political arm of the White House. The Department of Justice has routinely rubber-stamped policies that go against established legal precedent and undermine the rule of law. Morale is low and highly-qualified professionals are leaving because they are not allowed to do their jobs properly.
“I look forward to Judge Mukasey’s confirmation hearings to learn more about his views on privacy, counterterrorism, and the balance of powers.
“Today I pledge to the American people that when I am elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General with strong credentials and a record of independence. Furthermore, unlike this President, I pledge that all of the judges I nominate to the bench will have earned a rating of ‘Well Qualified’ from the American Bar Association. I strongly urge my fellow candidates to pledge the same.”
…Can we presume that there is no readily accessable argument against this guy? If there some quick, obvious, well-known Democratic argument against his confirmation, wouldn’t we be hearing it?