And still they wonder where their approval ratings have gone.

The New York Times reports that Judge Michael Mukasey of New York has been confirmed to the post of Attorney General, to which he was originally nominated on the advice of New York's senior Senator, Charles Schumer. Forty Democrats voted against the nomination; fifty three Senators, including Schumer, voted in favor; and all five members of the august chamber who are currently running for President absented themselves from the vote.

Mukasey is notable for being the first Attorney General of the United States to be sworn in after having refused to say whether he would prohibit torture, and after making an equally remarkable statement to the effect that the President can act outside of and contrary to the law.

Needless to say, this nomination was not subject to the ongoing republican filibuster that now requires the Senate to have sixty votes to pass much of anything.

Now, forty four Democrats did oppose this nomination, including all four Presidentials, ironically creating one of the few divergences of opinion between Senators Clinton and Schumer. Fine speeches were delivered, much high-sounding rhetoric echoed up to the high ceilings of the Senate chamber.

Failing a filibuster, however, as Glenn Greenwald rightly notes, all those speeches amount to exactly nothing.

Schumer especially distinguished himself by saying that Mukasey is "absolutely wrong on torture". So isn't that enough to not vote for him? I find myself wondering on what exactly a given nominee needs to be wrong to avoid confirmation. The Senate Democrats might want to send out a release laying out, now that torture is in practice acceptable, which lines exactly they're unwilling to cross.

Or maybe that's a bad idea, because the list is likely to be embarrassingly short.