Regarding your last question I would have to say that when Gonzales makes a pro DNC stance on issues such as being pro affirmative action - then with an AG like him who needs enemies :-)
Judges rule according to the strict, self-evident wording of the law...Gonzales did that in the Jane Doe cases, if you don't like his rulings, it's only because you don't like the law...but you won't see that.
You won't see it because you, as is the case with the majority of the people, believe that Judges are there to change laws...they are not. If there are bad laws set in place by the legislature, the way to change them is through the legislature. Unless of course, the laws are unconstitutional. The constitutionality of a minor being able to obtain a judicial bypass in order to skip over the parental notification requirements of the Texas Parental Act has not been challenged, and as it stands, it's Texas law.
Some claim that Gonzales should have not given his approval in those cases, but no one has discussed what legal ground he would have stood on to withhold granting the judicial bypass.
What you want is judicial activism to suit your agenda, and no matter how you cut it, judicial activism is wrong.
Your only complaint about Alberto Gonzales is that as both a Judge and an attorney, he's followed the letter of the law.
As far as the U of M case, the school has a stated policy that makes it clear that not even the highest possible GPA or LSAT scores guarantees admission, Barbara Grutter sued because she claimed to have been denied admission in spite of her score as a result of U of M's policy of looking beyond the scores of the applicants to choose which students to accept into their law school.
In order for the Court to find in favor of petitioner, it would have had to establish that the University was doing something either unconstitutional, or illegal, in fact, the ability of the University to make its own judgments includes the selection of the student body; educational autonomy is rooted in the First Amendment.
Now, achieving racial balance for its own sake is patently unconstitutional, but that's not what U of M was doing, and the absence of a quota system proved that; U of M was looking for the educational benefits of a diverse student body. Whether they are right or wrong is not the question, but whether it is legal for them to seek achieving those benefits they believe can be gained from a diverse student body by considering factors beyond GPA and LSAT scores, was, and the Court found that U of M was breaking no laws, and violating no one's constitutional rights.