Should the Senate reject AG-nominee Mukasey?

I have not been paying much attention to the debate over the Mukasey nomination hearings because, as noted here, sentencing issues seemed to be largely off the radar screen.  Still, I am intrigued to see that my colleague (and sentencing guru) Frank Bowman has this new piece at Slate urging the Senate to reject the President's AG nominee.  Here is how the piece starts:

The Senate should not confirm Michael Mukasey as the next attorney general. I am surprised to find myself writing this. I was initially pleased by his nomination.  By all accounts, Judge Mukasey is honest, thoughtful, tough-minded, and independent — qualities his disgraceful predecessor notoriously lacked. If confirmed, Mukasey would probably reinvigorate the Justice Department's depleted and demoralized upper management and make a start on the long job of restoring the department's reputation for integrity and professionalism.

Sadly, that's not enough.  The problem is not Mukasey's intellect, competence, or personal probity. It's that — as became clear on the second day of his Senate testimony — he is wrong about the fundamental moral question of whether reasons of state can justify or excuse the official embrace of torture. And he is even more wrong — dangerously, subversively wrong — about the place of the president in American constitutional government.  If the senators on the judiciary committee really listened to what Mukasey said, and listened as senators and citizens rather than as nervous party politicians, they would reject his nomination on constitutional principle and as a matter of institutional self-defense.