Bush picked his advisor Alberto Gonzales to be the next Attorney General. First, he's been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, but if he serves (or fails to be approved by the Senate) as Attorney General, that will make it politically impossible.
Moreover, the fact that Gonzales' legal opinion was that the Geneva Conventions should be discarded in dealing with terrorists taken prisoner on Afghanistan and Iraq battlefields-- and the subsequent spectacle of Abu Grahib -- tells us what we can expect from a Gonzales Attorney General: a trashing of civil liberties.
Oh, but Bush said Gonzales will protect civil liberties? Another example of Bush saying one thing, meaning the opposite.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Okay, I'm seeing in the press silly statements like Gonzales was appointed to "help shore up his credentials with conservatives for an eventual Supreme Court nomination." This is just goofiness. The problem with such poor tea-leaf reading is that it ignores the fact that the job of an attorney general (empassioned advocacy for the position of the government) is antithetical to the goals of a Supreme Court justice (balanced consideration of conflicting interpretations of the Constitution). Give anybody 4 years as the AG and they'll have turned in enough advocacy to make them look hopelessly biased for any case which might come in front of the Supreme Court.
If he wanted to be a Supreme Court justice, Gonzales might as well take hemlock. It would do as much for that career goal as becoming Attorney General.
Post a Comment