Friendship -- not the perfect Supreme Court blendship

By Aussiegirl

Jonah Goldberg nails it on today's NRO regarding the potential appointment of Alberto Gonzales and why friendship is the worst reason to appoint a Supreme Court justice. I have a few additional points to add. Not only is Gonzales Bush's friend, he is a political crony -- they worked closely together in Texas and he was the White House Chief Counsel and now the AG.

As such, I can't imagine a worse precedent to set than to start naming political friends and cronies to the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be, above all else, not identified with a political figure or point of view.

Further, Alberto Gonzales is a member of La Raza, (The Race -- motto -- For the race -- everything -- for everyone else-- nothing.) a left-wing immigrant rights organizations that he is still heavily indebted to (more on this in a little bit).

And we haven't even touched on the fact that Gonzales would have to recuse himself on any cases having to do with the war on terror or the rights of detainees because of his involvement in the so-called torture debate while he was in the White House -- thereby leaving potentially the most important decisions facing the Supreme Court in future years a 4 - 4 deadlock.

The Bush White House appears to have become the affirmative action White House -- white men obviously need not apply. Laura Bush wants a woman -- George Bush wants a Hispanic -- maybe they can compromise and find a woman Hispanic -- with a bit of black blood mixed in. (Who knows, she might be a lesbian Muslim as well -- might as well hit all the minority groups at one blow.)

And of course, let's not forget the obligatory rags to riches story which seems to be the supreme qualifier for the Supreme Court. If that was all you needed -- to be born dirt poor and make something of yourself -- then Robert Byrd or Harry Reid are supremely qualified.

Frankly I'm getting a bit tired of all these sob stories. In and of itself, a rags to riches story, no matter how admirable, is no more a qualifier for the highest court than being the president's friend or political crony. Who knows, even the middle class occasionally produces qualified candidates.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is supposed to help pick a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, says he's "not a candidate" for the job. I don't believe him, and hardly anyone else in Washington does either. There's precedent for such doubt. As you may recall, Dick Cheney wasn't a candidate for the job of vice president, either, when he ran George W. Bush's search committee to find a running mate in 2000.

But that sort of subterfuge I can handle. What I can't handle � and I think I speak for a lot of my friends on the right � is the deceit that Gonzales would make a great Supreme Court justice simply because he's good friends with President Bush. Last week Bush mounted a shockingly personal defense of Gonzales, in effect whining that he didn't like the "attacks" on his friend. He sent out White House spinners to make the case for Gonzales as well.

There are a number of problems here.
First, and most important, friendship is not a qualification for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Period.

. . . Second, President Bush says that he values loyalty and that this is why he's defending Gonzales personally. Bully for him. But the "attacks" on Gonzales have not been personal for the most part. They've been measured and respectful. Nonetheless, Bush's previous � and very loyal � AG, John Ashcroft, was attacked constantly and repeatedly in profoundly personal terms. And Bush never rose to defend Ashcroft. Indeed, the White House brilliantly used Ashcroft in a good-cop bad-cop routine for the entire first term.

. . .Most of the coverage of the right's opposition to Gonzales has centered on abortion and Gonzales' allegedly pro-choice views. That's obviously part of it. But that's merely one tree in a forest. The more comprehensive problem with Gonzales is that he's a beneficiary of what we could call the Friends and Hispanics network.

This isn't to say that he's not bright and capable. But he owes the bulk of his public career to two things: George W. Bush and his impressive personal story as a child of poor Mexican immigrants. There's nothing terrible about either of those things, but there's every reason to believe that Gonzales has internalized the logic of affirmative action. As White House counsel, it's been widely reported, he was one of the chief voices arguing for a softer approach to affirmative action.

Gonzales was perfectly qualified for the AG job, but that didn't stop the White House from offering him up in the spirit of identity politics.

. . .Shortly after he was confirmed, he told the Houston Chronicle that his family history would inform how he handles immigration issues. Imagine, if John Ashcroft had said his family history � his father and grandfather were Baptist ministers � was going to influence his policies.