The majority of the court, all Repbulicans, agreed with him that the statute dictated that result.
For that, he's been pilloried by conservatives for years.
He refused to legislate from the bench, and for that he's in the conservative doghouse.
It's silly. It's hypocritical beyond description, and it's just wrong.
For that, he's been pilloried by conservatives for years.
It really doesn't matter, though. Gonzales would have to recuse himself from too many important cases because he's currently AG.
It's more than that.
Gonzalez, a former Democrat and moderate that Bush has personal relationship with, argued for Bush to back down on opposing the U Mich racial quotas, is friendly towards affirmative action, has never shown any concern with Roe V Wade and other rulings on social issues. I've seen nor heard anything from him that he shares our concerns over judicial activism.
It's well known that anyone or anything not explicitly conservative ends up becoming liberal when exposed to Washington DC for a long time. Given his track record, we can expect no better from him that what we got from
O'Connor, and risk even worse.
Stevens, Souter and Brennan were picked by Republicans. In all three cases, the nominees weren't properly vetted ideologically. This is a similar case.
Far better for us to pick a sitting Federal Judge, a known quantity rather than a judicial 'pig in a poke'.