Gonzales and the Supreme Court
What a country this is. Less than ten years after being a lowly legal counsel for the Texas governor, helping him get out of jury duty because it might expose a drunk driving charge, Alberto Gonzales is now Attorney General and currently at the top of a list being considered for Supreme Court Justice. Amazing where you can go if you help a friend weasel out of a political scandal.
Bizarrely, Gonzales would actually be a better choice than most candidates one can imagine Bush nominating. And considering Gonzales’ stand on prisoner torture, that’s saying quite a lot. Of course, the question is, in the torture issue, was Gonzales conveying his own beliefs, or was he simply doing dirty work for the administration? And how tightly will his friendship with Dubya hold him to decide conservatively when he’s got a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and is suddenly answerable to no one or nothing except the Constitution and his own conscience?
If his loyalty is greater than his conscience, he’ll do what Bush wants; he owes his entire career to Bush, who hired him as an advisor, elections officer and liaison with Mexico. Later, he became Bush’s legal counsel to the governor’s office, then appointed him Secretary of State and finally to the Texas Supreme Court. When Bush became president, Gonzales left the TSC to become Bush’s legal counsel in the White House, only to be named Attorney General this year. And now he’s in line for being a SC Justice. Let’s face it, if it weren’t for Bush, Gonzales would probably still be a junior partner for some legal firm in Houston, doing adjunct work as a college professor on the side. It is wholly possible that he will allow that bond to influence his decisions as a Supreme.
Strangely, Gonzales will be protested by both sides. Die-hard conservatives dislike him because he tends to be pro-choice, once deciding that pregnant teens in Texas had the right to have an abortion without the permission of an adult. Liberals will remember the torture memo and the hiding of Cheney’s energy policy meetings.
I wrote, two years ago in 2003, when Gonzales was still a White House counsel, that he was a candidate for a SCOTUS position; it was no secret ever since Bush took the White House that Gonzales would be an obvious choice. No one doubts his friendship with Bush, but there is also the less-than-attractive but very real fact that he is being considered because of his race, which would make it much easier to confirm him–and as I’ve noted, the right wing remembers how Clarence Thomas was able to get confirmed, despite a practically blank record and charges of sexual harassment against him. The GOP is acutely aware that the best way to get a hard-core right-winger on the bench is if it’s a minority or woman. Furthermore, let’s face it: Gonzales has been riding Bush’s coat-tails for the past decade. Does anyone really believe he’d be considered for a SCOTUS seat if he hadn’t been a political flunky of the president? These do not bode well as professional qualifications.
Frankly, I’m on the fence about this one. Gonzales seems to be at least moderate on social issues, when he’s given the chance to speak his mind. He did call out Priscilla Owen when she tried to exceed the law and go activist in restricting reproductive rights in Texas, calling her guilty of “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.” And he is more likely than other possible nominees to swing left, at least on some issues. But his loyalty and debt to Bush is troublesome, as he has shown that he’s willing to get into some pretty nasty stuff to please the boss. He might agree to serve on the high court on the condition of taking marching orders, even if for a limited number of issues, or only as long as Bush remains in office.
But here’s a question: will Bush ever nominate someone who is even half as acceptable as Gonzales is?
Hello. Nice blog!
Fantasy scenario: what if this country, by the greatest of good luck and common sense, had a Democratic president and administration again. And what if we had an aggressive A.G. willing to explore that the last two elections were illegally, knowingly manipulated? (A very real possibility, IMO?) And what if it were proven that the electronic voting machines were rigged, intimidation of voters in Democratic districts were planned, and their chances to vote were outright denied?
What would become of Bush’s life-term appointments then? If the presidency was proven to have been illegally stolen, wouldn’t that invalidate all of his judicial appointments? I’d think so.
Nope, I’m afraid not. First of all, an investigation into past elections would probably not come from an administration–it’s not the style of current administrations to investigate past ones. Smacks too much of using governemnt resources for partisan political attacks, and being bad sportsmen. Maybe if the press turned it up and an investigation grew from that, it could be something. But even then, almost everyone in politics–including a Democratic administration–would do the same thing they did in 2000, namely to move forward for the sake of the nation, for continuity of the United States.
However, it would not affect Supreme Court nominations, nor anything else Bush did. Look at Florida. We know now, for a fact, that fraud by Republicans alone won Bush the election in 2000. It hasn’t invalidated a thing, and he continues to be president.
Not that this would stop the GOP from trying to rip the country to shreds if the positions were reversed; they’ve demonstrated quite thoroughly that they’d sooner screw the country than pass up a chance to profit politically. But that’s the good thing, and the frustrating thing, about the Democratic party: they’re not willing to endorse a scorched-earth policy like the GOP is. That’s a big part of why we like them, as painful as it can be all too often to see them pilloried for it.
Yeah, I know it. As I said, “Fantasy scenario”.
Sigh…