In 2003 we had a good chance at eliminating Affirmative Actions, and moving towards a color blind society. It was ALBERTO GONZALES who soften the White House arguments for the Solictor General Ted Oslon that led to our defeat. Alberto was personally in FAVOR of Affirmative Actions and discrimination, and allowed his personal views to intefer with White House Policy. Therefore Alberto is unqualified!
Apparently the President considers him qualified. I reckon I'll have to accept his opinion over yours. He's known Gonzales for a long time. Nothing personal.
Therefore Alberto is unqualified!
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.
I totally concur.