Burnt Orange Report

hear, hear!

I haven't touched the Gonzales issue too much, and anyone would be an improvement over John Ashcroft, but torture is a non-negotiable issue. To use Bush administration speak, you're either for it or against it. I'm against it. I don't care if Al Gonzales was against torture before he was for torture, before he was against torture. There is no legitimate explanation. Opponents of torture should oppose his nomination.

A general counsel's job is to provide legal advice. If you want to criticize his legal reasoning or cite some obvious flaw in his interpretation of the law, then your objection would make sense, Opposing him for offering his legal opinion to the President, which is his job, does not make much sense. Good day sir.

So Mr. Cisneros endorsement carries no water for y'all. He placed this gentleman above many Attorney Generals in some time. He IS the only Republican he has ever voted for. Cute phrasology tho. Points for that Byron.

Legal advice is not a mere quanta or package which suffices without further explanation.

It's not like lawyers say, "here's one unit of advice. That'll be 20 bucks."

Each piece of advice is unique and different.

Law and politics are tied together, and you're advice is going to represent your values. My values say that's there's no compromising on this issue. As such, I would tend to feel strongly that any advice that suggests how to do that is uniquely bad advice, no matter how well reasoned it is.

By comparison - it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution. Many people feel that it's incontrovertibly wrong that their interpretation permits legal abortions, no matter how well stated Roe v. Wade may have been. Incidentally, our President is one of those people.

You can sign this BOReporter as for a NO vote on this one as well.

"You're advice is going to represent your values." If you are a shitty lawyer that is correct. If you are a good lawyer, like Al Gonzales, then your (not you're) advice is going to be based upon legal precedent and things of that nature.

As for the Supreme Court, yes many people do feel abortion is wrong and do not accept that the Court decides what is right and wrong, only what will be legal and illegal. Instead they work to change the law and minds. Thankfully, many people did not stop working to end slavery after the Supreme Court affirmed that, as you would obviously have done since the Court decided.

Jim's follow-up comment probably better explains my line of reasoning in a legal sense, since Jim is BOR's legal expert =) (one semester of law school is one semester more than the rest of us).

It's nice how Henry Cisneros is used by conservatives as a prop to support Gonzales, considering how much appreciation they showed him in the 1990s. I'll support or oppose any Latino, African-American, Asian-American or White (for that matter) candidate/nominee/official, etc. on their merits, values, judgements and voting record.

So, I frankly don't care what Henry Cisneros says about Al Gonzales. Al Gonzales's legal advice for President Bush on the torture issue contradicts the values that I expect out of an Attorney General. That's my reason for opposing his nomination.

"Yeah, Bob, I could get you off on murder one. But you know what, my advice to you is - don't kill people!"

Really, don't you think Americans would have a better opinion of lawyers if they said that, instead of trying to twist the law to suit their clients every whim, no matter how objectionable?

True, the first job is to make predictions about where legal trouble may arise and how to avoid it. In that sense, we're cooking up an instruction manual for Justice Holmes's "bad man" who is paying us so that he can "get away with it."

But, Justice Holmes also made it clear that while morality and law were separate, he also, I think, makes it clear that morality is nonetheless important. And if you're going to counsel somebody, I think you've got to start by recognizing that you're more than just a technocrat. You've also got to take genuine concern for your client's moral situation and moral responsibility for what they do with your advice.

What you're trying to do here is to say that lawyers don't have any moral agency. It's a rehashed version of the "I was only following orders" defense.

And so that's the crux of my argument. Now if y'all you ever did was preach to your client, then you'd be a paster of the Gospel, not an attorney (or at least one that was worth a damn).

But the two professions are not mutually exclusive, and in many overlap in their concern for the "whole person."

To the Supreme Court -- Well I suppose that whole rant about Dredd Scott in the second presidential debate did not imply some questioning of the Roe court's morality? Now, sure, Bush likes to frame his preferences in terms of "strict constructionism" (its his opponents that are the "activists" in his view), but the way I see it is, it's all a matter of choice on this. At the time it was written, Dredd Scott was viewed as the formalistic perspective.

Just show me where to sign, Jim. I'm very much of the same view you and Byron are expressing, that if you're against torture, then voting no for Gonzales confirmation should be a natural.

I have been sending emails to both our Senators since before the invasion of Iraq. I have tried to get them to take a stand on the torture scandal. Senator Hutchison has been unforgivably silent on the issue. Senator C. is hopeless. What can I do? I really need to do something about this. I can't bear to be a part of this and we are all part of it if we don't stop it. Ideas?

We'll see how many of your fellow Democrats feel that way soon. I'm sure you'll see many surprises or disappointments.

Jim:

If you, as a lawyer, were asked if torture were legal under certain circumstances and torture was in fact legal under certain circumstances, would you simply refuse to answer the question? Do you believe that writing a legal brief on an issue is tantamount to authorizing or agreeing with it? I oppose the death penalty. If asked as general counsel if it is legal to adminsiter in Texas, the answer would have to be yes and I don't think that would put me in the category of "just following orders."

Gonzales provided legal guidance. He didn't give an order, justify it, authorize it, advocate for it, or engage in it. I understand that you and many others simply won't like anybody W puts forward, but the reasoning in this case seems pretty strained.