Michael Froomkin, University of Miami School of Law:
"[T]he White House may be thinking of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales as the next Attorney General.
That would be the same Gonzales who is up to his eye teeth in not just the torture memos, but also the idea that the US can unilaterally decide that the Geneva convention doesn’t apply to people we designate as ‘terrorists’ even if they are captured on a battlefield.
I find this rumor very plausible. From the White House’s perspective it’s a can’t-lose proposition. It makes a great trial run for Supreme Court nominations on multiple dimensions.
If the Democrats lie down on this one, it signals they may be patsies on far-right Justices. And, it substantially inoculates Gonzales himself if he turns out to be the Hispanic appointee the White House is said to desire: after all, if he was kosher enough to be the AG, why all of a sudden object to him on the Court?
On the other hand, if the Democrats dare to act like an opposition party faced with the most ideological and extreme government in the history of this nation, then the GOP can try to tar them as anti-Hispanic. Plus, when they filibuster a future paleoconservative Supreme Court nominee, the fight over Gonzales can be cited as evidence that those poor benighted Democrats just don’t like anyone and are being continually obstructionist.
The lesson for the Democrats seems clear to me: if you are going to take damage either way, better to be hung for a lion than a lamb. Not to mention that Gonzales’s conduct in office has been immoral. To allow him to hold office requiring confirmation is to partake of his taint." [November 10, 2004; Discourse.net has more]
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.