ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, July 11, 2005

Justice Gonzalez?

Well, besides this minor issue, he'd be great! (NOT!)

Judicial Jeopardy
"Justice Gonzales" supporters fail to make the case
By M. Edward Whelan III
Posted: Friday, July 8, 2005

As I have previously outlined, if Alberto Gonzales were appointed to the Supreme Court in the near future, he would likely have to recuse himself from virtually all the cases that the administration considers of greatest importance to the nation. His recusal obligations would have devastating consequences for the administration's prospects on the hotly divided issues that these cases present. In essence, the unique and invaluable role that Gonzales has played and continues to play as the president's top lawyer is precisely why, notwithstanding his excellent qualifications, it would be worse than senseless for the president to appoint him to any imminent vacancy.

Gonzales's recusal would, for example, place in serious jeopardy cases that present issues crucial to national security and the war on terror, as Andy McCarthy has explained. On the domestic side, Gonzales's recusal would almost surely result in the invalidation of the federal partial-birth abortion, a key part of President Bush's effort to build a culture of life in this country. And Gonzales, it appears, would be required to recuse himself from the three most important cases already on the Court's docket for next term, which involve parental notification for abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and the clash between universities and military recruiters over the military's policy on homosexuals. These are just some of the many major cases of special interest to the administration in which a Justice Gonzales would be required to recuse himself in coming years.

In addition to these issues, wouldn't it be necessary for Gonzalez to recuse himself from any matter concerning the detainment of enemy combatants (legal or illegal) in the WOT, given that in his role as legal counsel to the POTUS, he had a direct involvement in setting administration policy??? Wouldn't he in effect be setting policy and then ruling on the constitutionality of such policy?

Just a minor issue... My pick is Miguel Estrada. He would not have the same problems as Gonzalez, shares W's judicial philosophy, and is Hispanic. I think that's called a threefer.



;-)

Meanwhile, if you're a Leftist and looking for some red meat, check out this post.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler