The resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday marks the ends of a troubled era for the U.S. Department of Justice. As soon as word of his resignation became public, the pundits and commentators began to analyze his rise, his fall and his place in history.

The reasons for his rise are clear: His friendship with the president going back to their Texas days assured that he would be part of the current administration. There is, however, irony in his rapid ascension through the president’s patronage.

Had John Ashcroft (himself a controversial attorney general) remained in office, Gonzales would have stayed in the White House where his unswerving loyalty to the president would not have led to his professional downfall. But John Ashcroft resigned, and Alberto Gonzales was nominated to take his place.

At the time of his nomination as attorney general there were many dissenting voices. There was concern that he was not experienced enough either in law or politics to be attorney general of the United States. There was concern about his independent judgment after his role in the administration’s post-9/11 handling of crucial legal issues such as torture and surveillance. And there was concern that Gonzales’ loyalty to the president would stop him from discharging fully the duties of attorney general.

But these questions were never fully addressed by a Congress dominated at the time by those who did not want to challenge the president and those who were willing to confirm anyone after their negative experience with Ashcroft. Gonzales, as a loyal servant of the president, went along with his nomination. Whether he himself ever had doubts about whether he should accept the nomination, we are likely never to know.

To my mind, the story of Alberto Gonzales’ time as attorney general has about it the air of a tragedy. In the end, the Justice Department’s independence was severely damaged and many capable employees left in despair. Now it is, in the words of several insiders, a department suffering from low morale and disorganization.

Law enforcement in the United States has suffered a blow to its reputation for integrity because of, among other things, the attorney general’s poor performance in his congressional testimony. For months, the American public has been forced to witness its senior law enforcement official appear to lie about, or at least misrepresent, crucial facts.

The image of Gonzales attempting to get the then-seriously ill Attorney General Ashcroft to approve the president’s secret surveillance program and counter the deputy attorney general’s ruling from his hospital bed is one few Americans will soon forget. That his testimony was contradicted by none other than Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI, is nothing short of scandalous.

But as tragic as Attorney General Gonzales’ time in office has been for the Justice Department and for American law enforcement, it has also been tragic for him personally and for his family. He must now leave Washington as a defeated man.

I am reminded very much of another Bush loyalist, Harriet Miers, whose nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court led to her very public humiliation. There is a pattern here, I think. The president and his closest advisers, in nominating personal friends and loyal supporters for offices that require independence and outstanding credentials which the nominees lack, do neither the country nor the individuals so nominated any favors. It is time for the president to abandon this strategy.

We may only hope that whomever the president nominates to replace Gonzales will not be a “friend of George” but instead be a nationally admired lawyer with substantial legal and governmental experience who can exercise the independent judgment and skill the highest law enforcement position in the United States requires.