Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[IcemanCometh]

Alberto Gonzales chosen to succeed John Ashcroft

[bigzak25]

orale

[JoeChalupa]

Que bueno! And yes, I support the choice because he's Hispanic and one bad mofo.

[Yonivore]

Que bueno! And yes, I support the choice because he's Hispanic and one bad mofo.
Well, those are certainly germain qualities in an Attorney General. Could it be he's also a hell of a qualified person?

[dcole50]

Based on what little information I know on Alberto Gonzales, I prefer him over John Ashcroft.

A step in the right (read: correct) direction for Bush, in my opinion.

[exstatic]

Keeps his ass off the Supreme Court. Bravo.

[Yonivore]

Keeps his ass off the Supreme Court. Bravo.
Now, watch the President nominate Ashcroft for the Supreme Court. << Again, tongue firmly planted in cheek, ex.

[exstatic]

Supposedly, Ashcroft had his arm twisted for four years to implement the Bush agenda. Which is it?

[JoeChalupa]

Did I say he wasn't qualified? Of course he is..and he kinda looks like me too.

The law is the law.

[Hook Dem]

Perhaps you guys would have been happy if he were a Democrat. Automatically better! Right? :lol

[Yonivore]

Supposedly, Ashcroft had his arm twisted for four years to implement the Bush agenda. Which is it?
Where'd you hear that tripe?

[JoeChalupa]

When it comes to judges and Sherif's and stuff..I don't think political party should matter because the law is the law...when interpreted correctly.

I've voted for many republican judges and DA's in the past.

[exstatic]

See the Ashcroft resignation thread. This was given as a possible reason.

Top post on page 2

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Eh, most cabinet folks only last one term. They're all leaders in their area of expertise, and cash in while the cashing's good.

[FromWayDowntown]

I find some relief in the idea of Gonzalez as AG as opposed to Associate Justice. His decisions while on the Texas Supreme Court were, uh, curious.

[CrazyOne]

Curious? Could you give a couple examples?

[FromWayDowntown]

And there's this . . . . straight from a Drudge Link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041110/D8694G201.html)


For instance, Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy - essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought out in the lower courts - of detaining certain terrorism suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts.

He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. That position drew fire from human rights groups, which said it helped led to the type of abuses uncovered in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

Some conservatives also have quietly questioned Gonzales' credentials on core social issues. And he once was a partner in a Houston law firm which represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron.

[JoeChalupa]

I'll need to study up on this vato to see where he stands.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. That position drew fire from human rights groups, which said it helped led to the type of abuses uncovered in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.


I have to say I don't see anything wrong this. If breaking bones, humiliation, etc. is what it takes to save one American life (even NbaDunce's), then do what it takes.

[FromWayDowntown]

Curious? Could you give a couple examples?

Here are a couple that come to mind:

1. In Grapevine Excavation, Inc. v. Maryland Lloyds, 35 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2000), then-Justice Gonzales wrote a concurring opinion in which he would have held that an insured is not entitled to recover attorney's fees from its insurer based on a breach of contract claim. The practical effect of such a conclusion would permit insurers to deny virutally any claim and force the insured to file a lawsuit, claiming breach of contract, if it is to have any hope of obtaining insurance benefits. But the insured would have a great disincentive to file suit, because it would be forced to cover its own fees. You might not think that's all that abnormal, but consider a situation where a family has very little money as it is, suffers an injury that would be covered by an insurance policy, but can vindicate its right to coverage under the insurance policy only by incurring a large amount of debt in the hope of winning (knowing that it's unlikely to be able to afford a better lawyer than the insurance company can) a breach of contract action. In a normal contract situation, the party who breached the contract would, by law, be responsible for the other side's attorneys fees, but Justice Gonzales (had he had his way) would have exempted insurers from such a requirement.

2. Justice Gonzales also held that the jury must consider the negligence of the injured person (contributory negligence) even when there was no evidence to suggest that the injured person had been negligent, and even when the claim against the product manufacturer made the manufacturer liable regardless of its mental state. To simplify, the law permits a plaintiff to recover for injuries caused by certain product defects without proving negligence by the product's manufacturer. In this decision, Gonzales decided that even though the manufacturer could be held liable regardless of its intentions, that the manufacturer could be absolved of some or all liability if the plaintiff was negligent. But in the particular case, there was no evidence, save absolute conjecture, about what the plaintiff had done -- the plaintiff had died at the scene, and nobody was there when the accident (a truck backing up and crushing the plaintiff) occurred. In practical effect, Gonzales decided that conjecture (which is not evidence) about the plaintiff's actions could be enough to preclude recovery -- he bailed out manufacturers by placing a burden on the plaintiff to disprove his own negligence.

There are others, but those are two that come to mind.

[CommanderMcBragg]

I have to say I don't see anything wrong this. If breaking bones, humiliation, etc. is what it takes to save one American life (even NbaDunce's), then do what it takes.

I know it may sound crazy, but I think some of the terrorists have the same analogy. Beheadings included.

[FromWayDowntown]

If breaking bones, humiliation, etc. is what it takes to save one American life (even NbaDunce's), then do what it takes.

Yes, let's never mind our Constitution.

[Nbadan]

Right-wingers don't give a fuck about the Constitution. Look at the Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2. All this legislating from the bench crap from them is bullshit. It's Ok to interpret the constitution as long as you interpret it the way they want it interpreted - that is what they mean by legislating.

Fascists. All of them.

[nadabN]

http://www.cleanfunny.com/pics/animal-strange-weird-dog-longest-tung.jpg

[Nbadan]

Now don't get your self banned by trashing completely good threads peudo-dan.

[nadabN]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc9.jpg

[Nbadan]

Ummm..actually I have a extra-ordinarily long penis, but in your hole the Washington Monument would be small.

[nadabN]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/spam5.gif

[Nbadan]

August 4, 1955: Born in San Antonio. Grew up in Houston as second of eight children. See “Loyalty may pay off; Allegience of president’s lawyer could pave way to Supreme Court, Houston Chronicle, Jan. 21, 2003.


1973: Graduates from MacArthur High School. See id

1973-1975: Serves in U.S. Air Force. See id.

1975-1977: Attends U.S. Air Force Acadamy. See id.

1977-1979: Transfers to Rice University where he obtains a B.A. in political science in 1979. See id.

1982: Graduates from Harvard Law School. See id.

1982-1995: Lawyer at Vinson & Elkins (Houston, Texas). See id.

1988: Gonzolas invited to join the Bush 41 administration, but declines, and instead becomes a partner at the Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston, Texas. See “The White House Profiles,” The National Journal, June 23, 2001. Gonzales becomes first Hispanic partner at the Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston, Texas. Halliburton was a major client of Vinson & Elkins, and Gonzales worked in the section where Halliburton was represented where he had a strong relationship with the firm. Commondreams.org.

1995-1997: Chief Legal Counsel to Texas Governor George W. Bush


Texas Governor Bush names Gonzales his chief legal counsel. See Jena Heath, “Gonzales gains clout, savvy at Bush’s side, Austin American-Statesman, Mar. 18, 2001; Alan Berlow, “The Texas Clemency Memos,” Atlantic Monthly, July/August 2003.


1996: Gonzales saves Bush from jury duty in a DWI case (such service would have required Bush to divulges his 1976 drunken-driving arrest in Maine) by arguing that Bush might someday have to decide whether to grant clemency in the case. See Jena Heath, “Gonzales gains clout, savvy at Bush’s side, Austin American-Statesman, Mar. 18, 2001.

Between 1995 and 1997: Gonzales writes at least 57 legal memos to Governor Bush. An analysis of these memos indicates that “Gonzales's summaries were Bush's primary source of information in deciding whether someone would live or die. Each is only three to seven pages long and generally consists of little more than a brief description of the crime, a paragraph or two on the defendant's personal background, and a condensed legal history. Although the summaries rarely make a recommendation for or against execution, many have a clear prosecutorial bias, and all seem to assume that if an appeals court rejected one or another of a defendant's claims, there is no conceivable rationale for the governor to revisit that claim. This assumption ignores one of the most basic reasons for clemency: the fact that the justice system makes mistakes.” Specific examples include:

1) In case of a mentally retarded man (Washington) who was sentenced to death for a gruesome murder, Gonzales failed to mention Washington’s mental retardation. He also failed to mention that “Washington's trial lawyer had failed to enlist a mental-health expert to testify on Washington 's behalf (although he was entitled to one under a 1985 Supreme Court ruling), which in a death-penalty case clearly suggests ineffective counsel. Nor did he mention that ineffective counsel and mental retardation were in fact the central issues raised in the thirty-page clemency petition. Gonzales noted only that the petition had been rejected by the Board of Pardons and Paroles, a body that one federal judge condemned in 1998 for its tendency to rule on clemency appeals without any investigation or discussion among its members.”

2) “In his summary of the case of Carl Johnson … Gonzales failed to mention that Johnson's trial lawyer had literally slept through major portions of the jury selection.”

3) Gonzales’ “memo on Bruce Edwin Callins … fails to note that Callins's appeal to the Supreme Court generated the most famous death-penalty dissent in the past quarter century, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a longtime death-penalty supporter.

4) Gonzales’ “memo on Irineo Tristan Montoya …omits the single most important issue in the case: an alleged violation of international law, which had been brought to Bush's attention by, among others, the U.S. Department of State.

See Alan Berlow, “The Texas Clemency Memos,” Atlantic Monthly, July/August 2003.

1997-1999: Texas Secretary of State

Governor Bush appoints Gonzales as Texas Secretary of State. See “Loyalty may pay off; Allegience of president’s lawyer could pave way to Supreme Court, Houston Chronicle, Jan. 21, 2003; “The White House Profiles,” The National Journal, June 23, 2001; Alan Berlow, “The Texas Clemency Memos,” Atlantic Monthly, July/August 2003.

1998-2000: Texas Supreme Court Justice

Texas Governor Bush nominates Alberto Gonzales for Texas Supreme Court. See Janet Elliott, “ ABA debates Judicial Elections as Justices Push for Campaign Cash, Texas Monthly, September 6, 1999; “1998 Timeline,” Texas Monthly, December 14, 1998.


Within two weeks of Gonzales’ appointment to the Supreme Court, Enron law firm (and his former law firm) contributed $5,000 to his campaign fund. While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales receives more than $100,000 in political contributions from the energy industry. His total campaign contributions, mostly from lawyers, lobbyists and oilmen, was $844,000. Enron and its law firm (Gonzales’ former firm, Vinson & Elkins) were Gonzales’ biggest contributors at $35,450). See Bob Port, “New Bush tie to Enron: White House got $35G while in Texas,” Daily News, Feb. 10, 2002.

Texas Supreme Court Opinions: Gonzales authors 14 majority opinions, 5 concurring opinions, and 2 dissents. In one case, he argued that a person exposed to asbestos who wins a claim against a defendant may sue again if the person later develops a separate asbestos-related disease. In another case, his decision for an injured motorist creates a new cause of actions for plaintiffs. In a First Amendment case, he files a concurrence, agreeing with the majority that a disclosure element of a campaign finance law did not violate the First Amendment, but he was concerned that some disclosure requirements could be so onerous as to violate the First Amendment. He votes with the majority in 47 decisions that favored individuals over business defendants. He votes with the majority in 38 majority opinions that favored business over individuals. See Ryan Lizza, “Friend of the Court: Alberto Gonzales’s high-wire act,” The New Republic, May 27, 2002.

The 1999 Halliburton Case: A case involving Halliburton reaches the Texas Supreme Court. (A Halliburton employee had won a $2.6 million trial verdict due to allegations that a company supervisor framed him to test positive for cocaine. This verdict was overturned by a Texas Court of Appeals. During the period between July 26 and December 2, 1999, Halliburton executives made four contributions - $1,000 to Justice Priscilla Owen; two totaling $3,000 to Justice Alberto Gonzales; and $1,000 to Justice Nathan Hecht. On December 2, 1999, the Texas Supreme Court refuses to accept appeal of Halliburton case. See Commondreams.org; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 29, 2000.

The 2000 Jane Doe I Abortion Rights Case: In Jane Doe I (June 2000), Gonzales joined the 6-3 majority opinion that overturned a lower court ruling, and granted a 17-year old (whose parents didn’t believe in abortion) to have an abortion without notifying her parents. The statute at issue prohibited women under 18 from obtaining an abortion without parental consent unless she could establish in court that she was mature and “sufficiently well informed” enough to make the own decision and that (a) parental notification would not be in her best interest; or (b) parental notification might lead to physical, sexual or emotional abuse. In a 6-3 opinion, the Texas Supreme Court agreed with Jane Doe. Gonzales filed a concurring opinion, in which he deferred to the legislative intent of the statute at issue: “While the ramifications of such a law and the results of the Court’s decision may be personally troubling to me a s a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the Legislature.” He derided the dissenting opinions: “To construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconsionable act of judicial activism.” See Tim Grieve, The Next War: Bush and The Supreme Court, Salon.com, June 27, 2003; Ryan Lizza, “Friend of the Court: Alberto Gonzales’s high-wire act,” The New Republic, May 27, 2002.

The 2000 Bernal v. Southwestern Refining Case: Gonzales authors the Bernal v. Southwestern Refining opinion for the Texas Supreme Court, which “granted the energy industry one of its biggest Texas legal victories in recent history.” See Bob Port, “New Bush tie to Enron: White House got $35G while in Texas,” Daily News, Feb. 10, 2002.

Note that in 1999, Gonzales receives the “Lawyer of the Year” award from the National Hispanic Bar Association. See Gary Martin, “From cotton fields to the White House; Presidential counsel Gonzales has exceeded his dreams,” San Antonio Express-News, May 5, 2002.

2001-2004: White House Counsel

December 2000: Gonzales resigns from the Texas Supreme Court to join the Bush Administration as White House Counsel.

2001: Gonzales informs the American Bar Association that its official role in judicial nominations has ended. See Ramesh Ponnuru, Speedy Gonzales: Bush’s fast-rising counsel, National Review, April 30, 2001. According to Gonzales, “The President believes it is more appropriate not to have an outside group involved in the President’s decision of whom to hominate. The Senat Judicialy Committee still relies upon the recommendation of the AA …. So the ABA still has a very important role in the process of Judicial confirmations.” See “An interview with White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales,” The Third Branch, May 2002.

2001: Gonzales makes the legal case for keeping Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force papers secret. See Bob Port, “New Bush tie to Enron: White House got $35G while in Texas,” Daily News, Feb. 10, 2002.

2001: Gonzales writes presidential order blocking the release of presidential papers from previous administrations. See Gary Martin, “From cotton fields to the White House; Presidential counsel Gonzales has exceeded his dreams,” San Antonio Express-News, May 5, 2002.

2001-02: Gonzales advises President Bush not to grant prisoner-of-war status to Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. See Ryan Lizza, “Friend of the Court: Alberto Gonzales’s high-wire act,” The New Republic, May 27, 2002.

2002: Gonzales writes presidential order to establish military tribunals in which to try foreign terrorism suspects behind closed doors. See Gary Martin, “From cotton fields to the White House; Presidential counsel Gonzales has exceeded his dreams,” San Antonio Express-News, May 5, 2002.

January 22, 2002: Gonzales authors memo “Re: Application of Treaties and Laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees. The memo’s summary states as follows:

You have asked for our Office's views concerning the effect of international treaties and federal laws on the treatment of individuals detained by the U.S. Armed Forces during the conflict in Afghanistan. In particular, you have asked whether certain treaties forming part of the laws of armed conflict apply to the conditions of detention and the procedures for trial of members of a1 Qaeda and the Taliban militia. We conclude that these Treaties do not protect members of the al Qaeda organization, which as a non-State actor cannot be a party to the international agreements governing war. We further conclude that the President has sufficient grounds to find that these treaties do not protect members of the Taliban militia. This memorandum expresses no view as to whether the President should decide, as a matter of policy, that the U.S. Armed Forces should adhere to the standards of conduct in those treaties with respect to the treatment of prisoners. See http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.01.22.pdf; see also http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm for more detailed analysis of the Gonzales’ memo and related documents and administration actions relating to detainees.

2002-03: Gonzales modifies government brief drafted by Solicitor General Ted Olson’s office in affirmative action case. As modified, the brief “advocates desirability of government-sponsored diversity if achieved short of quotas.” See Robert Novak, Editorial, Chicago Sun Times, Jan. 23, 2003; John M. Broder, “Administration Lawyer Lauds Affirmative Action Ruling, The New York Times, June 28, 2003.

Albert Gonzales, Cliff Notes (http://tesibria.typepad.com/democracy_is_coming/2004/11/alberto_gonzale.html)

[Nbadan]

The great thing about this new board is that it's easy to add people to your ignore list. Just go to Control panel - buddy/ignore list - add nadabN - and wallah - he's gone.

[nadabN]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/images/cattrim2.jpg

[Samurai Jane]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/images/cattrim2.jpg

:lol

That's messed up!

[nadabN]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/images/priceless7.jpg

[nadabN]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/images/cattrim.jpg

[Yonivore]

Nbadanallah. Thanks for the tip. I can't quote your thread anymore because, not only did I put nadabN in the ignore list...I put you in the ignore list.

Things will certainly be a little less moronic now...

[nadabN]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/signs/sign4.jpg