Affirmative Action is/was a system of quotas which would theoretically "balance" the ethnic make up of a work force/student body to mirror the ethnic make up of the nation. The University of Michigan did not set quotas for racial admissions, it simply considered the race, and background of the applicant when reviewing their application to gage the individual's achievement against other applicants.
In other words, did the individual overcome great socioeconomic hardships to reach the point in his life where he was being considered for entry into the University's Law School?
Your contention that since Alberto Gonzales argued and won a case that you do not agree with, he's not qualified for the position of AG is flawed, as it is simply based on your disagreement with his argument. In fact, his ability to win the case is exactly what qualifies him for the position; had the opposing view presented a better case, and argued better, they would have won.
My main requirement for an AG in this presidency is the ability to win in Court.
"My main requirement for an AG in this presidency is the ability to win in Court."
Therein lies the problem. OJ is free because his attorney won in court.
I actually care about justice and the merits of the case.
What are you talking about?
Alberto softned up the Solicitor Generals Arguments and thats why we lost. ALberto supports AA and wanted it to stay. So ALberto used his PERSONAL VIEWS to interfer in a case.