On Tuesday, our nation and the rule of law that governs it suffered a major a blow. With an 11-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general. With this step, the full Senate will almost assuredly approve his nomination next week.

The main failure of Mr. Mukasey — a generally well respected New York trial judge handpicked by President Bush — is not so much his views (or lack thereof) on the legal gray area of water boarding as a means of torture, which has been the most widely covered opposition to his nomination. Rather, it is his blatant disregard for one of the most fundamental facets of the rule of law — namely, the articles of the Constitution and the duties of power outlined therein — that should be most troubling to the American citizens as he assumes the position of top law enforcement officer in the nation.

Surely — after the disaster that was Alberto Gonzales' tenure as attorney general — there has been no presidential appointee in recent memory who must exhibit immediate competence and administrative savvy more than the next attorney general. Mr. Gonzales, who at one time was considered by the Bush administration for a life term on the Supreme Court, was the perfect example of everything an attorney general should not be, and therefore, everything the next attorney general must not be.

During his tenure, Mr. Gonzales was a main proponent of a warped view on international torture law and an endorser of the blatantly unconstitutional practices of the Patriot Act, championed by Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. On top of that, Mr. Gonzales was an integral part of the firing of seven U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons, costing him his job and the credibility of one of the most vital departments in government.

It therefore follows that the next attorney general has a tall order ahead of him. And while Mr. Mukasey will surely be a drastic upgrade from Mr. Gonzales, as nearly anybody would have been, he falls well short of an acceptable appointee due to his distorted views on executive power, one of the greatest and most consistent downfalls of the two previous attorneys general.

Beginning with John Ashcroft and then Mr. Gonzales, the position of attorney general has become a tool for the administration to ignore laws passed by Congress, and to disregard some of the most fundamental civil liberties of the general citizenry.

Beginning with illegal detention camps and continuing with warrantless wiretapping, the president of the "small government party" has overreached his governmental duties far beyond constitutional authorization. And one of the key henchmen all the while has assumed the office of attorney general, a reality as absurd as the war on terrorism used to justify such despotic policy.

And so we deserve more, if not from our president, then from the chief enforcer of the law.

Yet Mr. Mukasey, in his responses to senators during the confirmation hearings, failed to show any promise for resilience or integrity when defending the law of the land.

When responding to the issue of legality of the president's warrantless wiretapping program under Article II of the Constitution, Mr. Mukasey said he was "agnostic" toward the issue. When addressing Sen. Russ Feingold's questions regarding the administration's military justifications for the program, the future attorney general said, "I still have not come to a conclusion. … I believe there are good arguments on both sides of that issue."

Agnostic? Indecisive? These are far from sufficient qualities for one of the most crucial positions in American government at one of the most critical times in the history of the Justice Department.

Further, one of the most troubling answers that Mr. Mukasey provided was when he addressed the powers of the president in regard to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which almost directly renders the president's warrantless wiretaps unconstitutional — an assertion Mr. Mukasey agreed to. Yet when asked whether he would enforce the illegality of the warrantless wiretapping, Mr. Mukasey said he would not constrain the president's "constitutional authority."

If nothing else, this is a pure example of the bloated powers of the president and the consequent compliance of the attorney general that we have come to know and hate so dearly. When addressing the issue, Mr. Feingold said, "Clearly, Judge Mukasey believes that a law can be constitutional on its face, but can become unconstitutional if its application constrains the constitutional authority of the president. There is no difference between this view of executive power and the theory that executive power trumps congressional power."

It therefore follows that, even with the grossly over-compliant attorneys general of the past seven years, Mr. Mukasey will be an even better fit for the Bush administration, and even more detrimental to the American people. In appointing Mr. Mukasey, the president has avoided any further hurdles the Constitution may provide as he finishes the last 14 months of his presidency.

With his appointment, Mr. Bush has rendered the position of attorney general hallucinatory — a title and position without purpose.

Andy Granias ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and legal studies.