Redstate

that Gonzalez has no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him. He is not only the current AG but a former State SC Justice as well. That's more directly relevant experience than many other previous SC nominees.

Let me be clear that I am not saying thet Gonzalez is a good candidate. To be honest I do not know and , quite frankly, don't follow this closely enough to have an informed opinion. But to imply that Gonzalez is being considered only because he is a friend of Bush makes no sense. If a liberal said that you would not take that seriously.

You might catch that I'm tying Hamilton's statement to Bush's.

And I repeat what I said.

I find myself in the odd position of having to defend Bush, who I do not like much. Bush did not say he was nominating Gonzalez because he is a friend of his. Bush simply said he did not like it when a friend is attacked. If and when Bush decides to nominate Gonzalez (I have no idea if he will) he will probably have a lot to say about Gonzalez's qualifications.

You tying Bush's comments on friendship to Hamilton's on nominating someone is the kind of thing that many on the Right accuse liberals of doing all the time.

BTW, may I ask what exactly bothers you about Gonzalez? His abortion positions? Or something else?

Bush is clearly a loyalist to his friends - his previous cabinet appointments have borne that out.

My post is a rejoinder to the notion that friendship is a qualification to nomination - and in fact was specifically addressed many moons ago.

so what? Where did Bush say that Gonzalez was being considered because he is a friend? Nowhere.

I repeat that if a liberal had written what you did the Right would accuse them of changing the meaning of the words.

And I remain curious. What is it about Gonzalez that bothers the Right so much? Or you?

Have been articulated again and again on this site. Take a look around; there's no reason Krempasky should have to spell them out for you again.

to imply that Gonzalez is being considered only because he is a friend of Bush makes no sense

Quite right.  Gonzales is a bright, even brilliant, able, accomplished attorney.  

And, none of those qualities were mentioned in Bush's statement.

Cheers -

obligation to do anything. I simply asked a question. I don't read this site every day. For example, in the time it took you to post your response you could have actually been useful and provided some information.

Bush nominated Gonzalez?

really think that grade school snark comments favorably on you?

that Gonzales should not be nominated is the fact that he would have to recuse himself on many cases sure to come before the Court.  Don't you think that's reason enough?  If you need more, as was stated to you, check out the many postings on this subject at RedState.

to grasp that 1) this post was not a laundry list of my objections to Gonzales and 2) it WAS, however a specific rejoinder to Bush's rumored motivation, in part (and recent statements consistent with) of friendship with Gonzales - do you think that reflects well on you?

that's not really true. I too thought it was but apparently SC Justices rarely recuse themselves and there is no way to force them. I don't have a link but if you need one and I can remember where I read it I will provide it.

I will point out yet again that Buishs did not say or imply that Gonzalez's only or even main qualification to be SC nominee is that he is a friend of his. He simply said he was bothered by atacks on his friend.

If when Bush decides to nominate Gonzalez he says that friendship was the main reason you will have a valid point. But not today.

No, Bush did not nominate Gonzales.

My point is that the objections to Gonzales, from both the right and left, have been on matters of substance, and that Bush's personal affection for and loyalty to Gonzales, however laudable, have no place whatsoever in the discussion.

Cheers -

But I think that at this stage Bus is not defending Gonzalez as a nominee but only as  friend who has been attacked. That's all.

If Bush decides to nominate Gonzalez he will have ample opportinuties to highlight what he thinks are Gonzalez's qualifications. But now is not the time for that.

just recuse himself about a year ago?  Pretty rare, huh?

pretty rare.How many cases did Scalia hear? How many did he recuse himself from? What about the other justices.

I too thought Gonzalez would have to recuse himself a lot but it seems it is not common at all.

Is a supreme court justice involved in formulating policy that appears before the court.

But that doesn't mean Gonzalez will decide to recuse himself. He alone gets to decide that and is under no obligation one way or another.  

in the past bears no relationship to the future.  The court has become so politicized now that any hint of a conflict of interest will cause the fringe groups to demand recusal.   Sadly, that is the state of our S.C. now.

It made no difference when they asked Scalia to recuse himself from deciding on Cheney's energy task force because they went hunting together. Scalia practically made fun of them.

The fact is that there is no way to force a SC Justice to recuse himself (not even his colleagues can do it IIRC) and they usually don't care what opposing interest groups think.

that just having this issue hang over the nomination when no such issue exists with the many other nominees clearly scuttles Gonzales' chances, rare or not.

But I doubt that either Bush or Gonzalez care about this or will focus on this. But I don't know.

Also I suspect that if a Gonzalez were a strong anti-Roe candidate the Right would not care so much about potential conflicts of interest.

First of all, Gonzales has been a judge for a grand total of 2 years. Second of all, if not for being Bush's friend Gonzales would not even be on the radar.

On top of that, of course, his judicial philosophy is unclear. It's possible he actually will be a real conservative-- my guess is that he would be similar to Kennedy, though.

...announce that he's appointing Gonzales "because he's my friend".  It's enough that we already know they are friends.  It's bad form in my opinion.

Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsberg, and Breyer were not personal friends of the President who appointed them.  This deference to avoiding appearances of favoritism should be maintained.  

Gonzales disappoints the Right because of statements he made regarding abortion and race-based preferences.  Both sounded accommodationist with prevailing liberal opinion.  Gonzales opinions on most other subjects are unknown, which recall the unfulfilled promises of the Souter nomination.  

Isn't that more than what Clarence Thomas had as judge when he was nominated?

Perhaps if GHWB had known Justice Souter as well as GWB knows Alberto Gonzales then he would have had a clearer view of Souter's judicial leanings.

So, loyalty and affection aside, perhaps familiarity is a good thing.

GHWB was a moderate; he appointed a moderate.....we should not have been surprised....GHWB did not have the "conservative core" his son has

Taking Rudman's counsel was telling; the disappointment was Sununu's glowing endorsement of Souter

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think it's not to the point.

Gonzales is not "Bush's friend who has been attacked".  Gonzales is a potential candidate for the Supreme Court whose publicly stated positions on substantive issues are being discussed and criticized.

Bush's friendship with Gonzales is not only not relevant, it should be specifically excluded from the discussion.  It's inappropriate for Bush to insert it.  

If he wishes to nominate Gonzales and defend his record on the merits, that would be appropriate.  If, having nominated Gonzales, he wants to attest to Gonzales' character based on his personal association and friendship with him, also appropriate.

If, however, he wants to say that the public record of public officials should not be subject to criticism because they are his friends, it's not only irrelevant and inappropriate, it is extremely wrong.

Cheers -