How bad is Gonzales?

Well, he's already changed his public stance on torture (although, since his prior stance was taken while in a policy-setting role, it's a bit hard to believe that he intends to change policy now). But it seems like this guy plays pretty fast and loose with the law, if the first day of hearings are taken at face value. In addition to a claimed uncertainty about his past and present positions on torture (you have to see the transcript to appreciate the confusion), he appears comfortable with eliminating the separation of powers:

MR. GONZALES: Senator, I do believe there may come an occasion when the Congress might pass a statute that the president may view as unconstitutional. And that is a position and a view not just of this president, but many, many presidents from both sides of the aisle.

Armando at kos comments (reflecting my reaction):

One more time - WTF? The President will decide if he will comply with a duly enacted law. Well Gawddamn - and here I thought it was the Supreme Court that determined the Constitutionality of laws.

There was also some unnerving discussion of the Patriot Act, in which Gonzales seemed not to know the difference between contesting a search after it happens and requiring due process in advance (i.e., reasonable grounds, a warrant, or some semblance of a veriable basis). And this guy is to be our chief national lawyer? Help.

It struck me that Specter was a bit shocked by Gonzales' ignorance. Frankly, so was I.

I recommend that you read Armando's whole summary if you value the future of your civil rights or law enforcement in this country.

Update: more dissection of Gonzales' double-talk here.