How can a sitting federal judge advise a partisan political candidate for President and not get into trouble?

I see no reason to disbelieve Bill Kristol on the subject of how conservative Mukasey is, esp. given Mukasey's horrible Padilla ruling, and that greatly concerns me.

The Dems need to take this seriously, not celebrate that Olson didn't get nominated. If Mukasey really is just as bad, as Bill Kristol alleges, he should not be confirmed.

I'm curious what the precedents are for confirming an AG who's coming in while there are scandals under way, and pressing issues that need to be addressed immediately. One of the dodges that a Supreme Court nominee has when facing the hearing is that they can say "I'm not going to comment on something that might come before the Court," which can basically cover everything, but is viewed as somewhat reasonable based on the notion that a judge is supposed to be open-minded before hearing a case (obviously we know this is nonsense, but that's the theory).

An Attorney General doesn't have the same kind of expectations. If Leahy says to him "If the President orders you to not follow through on a contempt citation or subpoena, what will you do?" he can try to wriggle out of it, but I would think it would be much more difficult in that case. It seems to me that the Senate can go after him a lot more specifically, to ensure that we're not just getting more of the same (and if he lies to the committee, he can theoretically be impeached).

The thing I find most fascinating is the level of suspicion that exists about any Bush nominee. The idea of nominating someone who both sides could agree on seems crazy.

After almost 7 years of this the suspicion is warranted. The Dems should be able to get assurances that the investigations will continue and any Gonzo files still left hanging will be turned over. Heck we still don't know who created the list of fired US attorneys.

I agree with Steve that suspicion is warranted. As long as Bush and Cheney are not yet impeached, there is no way in hell that they will nominate anyone who would be acceptable to the Democrats other than a stealth candidate about whom little is known but will nevertheless support their high crimes and misdemeanors.

"Of all that time, the most telling decision for liberals and conservatives alike is his ruling in the Jose Padilla case, where he found that the U.S. could detain Padilla indefinitely without charges (eventually reversed on appeal), but that he should be able to meet with his attorneys." We can do better than this, no question. The question is, can the Republicans? Goddamn, this sucks. When someone who says a US citizen can be kept a prisoner indefinitely (and Padilla is a citizen, make no mistake about that) can be considered any kind of compromise candidate? What a sack of crap.

Agreed that anyone who could be nominated for public office by Bushco is unlikely to survive a smell test of any kind. The key is independence, and the degree of his independence is not known. Schumer likes him, but Schumer's record as someone who can size up a rat is spotty, to say the least.

Plus, Bush showed his true colors by installing a known wingnut evildoer as Acting Attorney General, a clear tactic to muscle Democrats into a quick confirmation.

Conclusion? (1) Democrats should give Judge Mukasey a very tough confirmation hearing. You know, where you ask penetrating questions, and keep asking them when the nominee does not answer them. (2) There should DEFINITELY be some payback for confirmation. Republicans don't give up anything for nothing, and neither should the Democrats. Produce all the subpoenaed documents and witnesses for starters. Plus withdraw the last of the obnoxious judge nominees. Then we should listen. Not before.