> Alberto Gonzales of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and US Patriot Act
> fame.. So does this mean Ashcroft was too liberal? I don't get it.
Al Gonzales has been in the back pocket of the Bush family since at least his tenure at Vinson & Elkins. At V&E, he was a partner in the Business, Transactions, Real Estate section (which also included energy), a section that largely supported Enron and, to some degree, Halliburton, and was led, in part with two other partners, by Joe "let me sneer at you, Enron congressional committee" Dilg, now the managing partner of V&E.
At the time that I worked with Al (90-95), he was a fairly moderate person; so moderate, that some of us liberal-leaners used to joke with him that we'd probably have to vote for him if he ran for office just because he was so even-keeled, polite and fair. Yeah, we liked him, or at least that version of him. The managing partner at that time was Evans Atwell, a close Bush family friend, and it was my impression that Evans steered Al towards the Bush family. Al was a significant volunteer in Bush 41's Economic Summit, and when Jr. ascended the throne, Al left V&E to help with the campaign and became Secretary of State.
Upon the death or resignation of one of the Texas Supreme Court Justices, Al was appointed to that slot by Shrub. His tenure was relatively mundane except for two notable bits: 1) He openly criticized uber-conservative judge Priscilla Owen (who was nominated by Bush 43 for a fed position and I believe blasted down); and 2) was one of three Tx SC judges who received and accepted political contributions from Halliburton WHILE the TX SC was deliberating on a case in which Halliburton was the defending party. Make of that what you will.
More on the Owen comment, though. Owen, fiercely conservative and anti-abortion, was coming down hard on parental notification for abortion - egads! the A word! - when Gonzales stated in his comments of July 23, 2002: "To construe [the act] so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the state, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism" — one he said he wouldn't engage in.
Will he now eat those words? Heh, guess we'll have to see how far the worm has turned. This could bite him in the arse with the social conservatives.
His performance as White House counsel has defied all I ever knew about the man when working with him. It is difficult, if not impossible, for me to see him in a department that is overseeing prosecution of his former clients, but then this is not new. Most judges in Houston who have been involved in Enron litigation have either worked for V&E, are related to someone who works at V&E or have had to completely recuse themselves due to close association with defendants. I do not know Al as a scholar or practitioner of either criminal or constitutional law. He was a good lawyer, but, imho, not an innovative thinker. It may be difficult for him to distance himself from his former firm's close ties - and they are very close ties - to Enron and the players therein. Then again, the Fourth Estate will probably ignore this, as well.
I am eager to see what comes of his nomination committee hearings and just what is made public and revealed.
- Deborah