The Forum should unite against Alberto R. Gonzales

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Black_Iron

Moderator
Does anybody here support that roach for attorney general?

We should do everything possible to make sure that Alberto Gonzalez does not become the next U.S. attorney general.

We should e-mail influential Republican Senators to oppose this at once. I don't care about the ridiculous "Hispanic" card or whatever. His positions are atrocious on just about every issue, I see no reason why Bush would appoint such an abomination.
 
We ought to.....

.....just lobby against the entire office of attorney general.
I can't remember a good one in my lifetime. :(
 
Does anybody here support that roach for attorney general?
Click to expand...

Yea, where's Janet Reno when you need her.
1.gif
 
Come on guys, let's get serious.

Albert is quite possibly the worst nomination to come out of Bush and it's simply an example of cronyism before gun rights. His stance on immigration (for Hispanics) is not only immoral, it rewrites the law for a select ethnic group which is unfair.

His record on the Texas Supreme Court is atrocious as well. He is nothing but a concession, and the office of Attorney General is not something we should concede. I'd prefer that this man just get kicked out of the Bush government entirely.
 
Can someone post the e-mails of relevant Senators, etc? We can coordinate our efforts with other forums and strike the Gonzalez nomination down.

We've had enough of this kind of immigration, and it's time to crack down.

Albert is the last person (being Mexican) to do it, and I doubt he'll "enforce the law of the land" when it comes to Hispanic immigrants.

Ask Republican senators to grill him on immigration, gun control, abortion, etc.

The fact that Bush would even think of appointing this man to the Supreme Court is simply a nightmare.
 
Hey BlackI, whats your issue - the fact that he's an American with Mexican heritage or the fact that his job will be to enforce the law (which you obviously don't like)? As AG, he doesn't make the law, he is only charged with enforcing it. If you don't like the law on immigration, then your bitch is with Bush, not Gonzalez. Don't thnk Gonzalez wil enforce the law? Show me some evidence to the contrary.

Time to put away the white robes and hood.
 
I'm against him adamantly. Even though Ashcroft declared the 2A to be what it clearly says it is, this guy might come out with a reversal of that position.
 
I'm against him adamantly. Even though Ashcroft declared the 2A to be what it clearly says it is, this guy might come out with a reversal of that position
Click to expand...
.

I highly doubt that, not that the AG's opinion of the 2nd has much real bearing on how they enforce the law anyway. Why do you think this just now came up during the confirmation hearings? Who was doing the questioning when Gonzalez said that? IIRC it was Schumer.

This statement was simply a matter of politics for purposes of getting the senate confirmation. Neither Bush nor Gonzalez wanted to hand the dems a solid reason with which they could try to 'Bork' him. Had Gonzalez said he was against any gun laws, the dems would have an easy reason to try to pull a Bork. As it stands now, they (the senate dems) have to carefully search for a reason so they don't end up looking like the racists they really are.

This has less to do with how he really feels about the RKBA than the simple politics of getting through the confirmation process.
 
Last edited:
Hey BlackI, whats your issue - the fact that he's an American with Mexican heritage or the fact that his job will be to enforce the law (which you obviously don't like)? As AG, he doesn't make the law, he is only charged with enforcing it. If you don't like the law on immigration, then your bitch is with Bush, not Gonzalez. Don't thnk Gonzalez wil enforce the law? Show me some evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

I think I outlined my complaints against him fairly clearly; so please re-read my posts before you accuse me of "evil racism". :eek:

I don't want him "enforcing" unconstituitional laws. I don't want him sidelining or neglecting or neutering important laws concerning immigration quotas. Gonzales is probably the most self-serving and corrupt individual in the Administration.

You telling me Gonzalez didn't influence Bush on immigration? Get real. And I did castigate Bush for immigration and Gonzales.

Time to put away the white robes and hood
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, I think it's time to take them out. I don't see the gain in sucking up to ultra-nationalist minority groups while "demonizing" ultra-nationalist white groups. I also think it's time for you to assume a treatment regimen concerning the poison the mass media has infused into your brain.

I highly doubt that, not that the AG's opinion of the 2nd has much real bearing on how they enforce the law anyway. Why do you think this just now came up during the confirmation hearings? Who was doing the questioning when Gonzalez said that? IIRC it was Schumer.
Click to expand...

No, the AGeneral's position on the Constituition is important and it should send a clear message. Bush did that with Ashcroft. I don't want Gonzalez using his leverage to corrupt or weaken the good judges on the Supreme Court bench. Hopefully, many of the gun laws will be challenged and declared unconstitutional.
 
BlackI-

Apparently you have little understanding of the job of the AG. He doesn't make the laws, he only enforces them. If your problem is with "unconstitutional laws" then the AG is the wrong man to be complaining about. Congress passed those "unconstitutional laws", and the president signed them (unless passed by a veto override). And those "unconstitutional laws" you complain about are constitutional and valid until the SCOTUS decised otherwise. Whether the AG likes them or not, he is charged with their enforcement until such time as they are not law. Thus their personal opinion of the law is irrelevant... except to dolts that think the AG has some sort of sway with the Supreme Court.

You complain that Gonzalez is a self-serving and corrupt individual and has influenced Bush on the immigration policy. Please cite me some specific evidence to that effect.
 
Black Iron has some extremely good points.Why do some of you have to allways accuse someone with an anti- something? Weather it be religion,race,you name it.I guess in some ways its better than saying nothing.(maybe not)Do you think Gonzalez had anything to do with the treatment of prisoners at Guantonamo? Ever hear of Maztland?(not sure of spelling) Bush broke his oath as soon as he took it. Protect the Country first. Gonzalez is key to that as AG. Do you think being Mexican will influence him? Mexicans and israelies have dual citezenship with America.
 
Hooey- No I can't say I think his heritage will influence his legal reasoning. He's a Harvard law grad. - a little too smart for such public nonsense that would compromise his post as cheif law enforcement officer of the United States. But apparently many here think his ethnicity will have influence on his decisionmaking. So why is Ashcroft so revered? Were you not concerned that his bible-thumping background would influence his decisionmaking?

And as to the AG's influence with the SCOTUS, when did Ashcroft release the opinion on the 2A? Why don't you tell me how that really helped us with Stewart in the 9th Circuit, huh?

Besides, y'all are missing the audience to which the statement about the AWB was made. Chuckie Schumer in a confirmation hearing. You're upset because he lied to Chuckie? Does Bork mean anything to you?
 
"Apparently you have little understanding of the job of the AG. He doesn't make the laws, he only enforces them." Shaggy

If we were actually enforcing the existing immigration laws, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. The problem with Gonzalez is that he will continue to NOT enforce present law...and at the same time will contribute to the laxing and/or dissolution of such laws. You have little understanding if you don't realize the AT does have enormous influence on the legislation process, even if it is not formally in his job description.
You are correct, though, in that he is only part of the problem. President Bush is responsible for the border fiasco, ultimately. And it breaks my heart.
 
If we were actually enforcing the existing immigration laws, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. The problem with Gonzalez is that he will continue to NOT enforce present law...and at the same time will contribute to the laxing and/or dissolution of such laws.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz. And I thought Gonzalez hadn't even been confirmed yet. So who has not been enforcing the existing immigration laws so far? Ashcroft, maybe? And maybe thats because you simply don't agree with Bush's position on immigration, but its still the law and as far as I can tell Ashcroft enforced it and Gonzalez will continue to also. Now I ask you, as I did with BI to cite me some evidence how, or why he will NOT enforce the present law, and additionally how he will contribute to the dissolution of such.


Let me add this, however: I am not a staunch proponent of Gonzalez, but his remarks about the AWB must be taken with a grain considering the politics of the confirmation process. And WRT immigration policy, if thats your main problem, bitch about Bush, not Gonzalez. Bush set the policy.
 
If you think the present immigration laws have been enforced, you are clearly out of touch with the border situation. The numbers of illegals who cross into the country on a daily basis is staggering. No one--even those who support illegal immigration--argue with that. I can not think of another example where the enforcement of the law has been allowed to break down in the manner that immigration has been allowed.
No, Gonzales has not been Attorney General up until this point. Yes, there are lots of other people to blame up to this point. And yes, namely Bush. But just because Gonzales has not been responsible up to this point, that does not mean we can not question what effect he will have in his new position.
So where has Gonzales been? He is a former board member to La Raza, for one thing. La Raza is a pro-Hispanic activist group. By itself, this is not a bad thing. But it is also a pro-illegal-immigration group. This is a bad thing. They are fighting to make driver's licenses available to illegal aliens, college tuition breaks for illegal aliens, and are fighting against measures to allow local and state law enforcement to help enforce immigration laws. All of this is listed in the depths of their own web site.
In my opinion, this is like hiring a former board member of "the legalize marajuana" activist group to run the DEA. Or a former member of NAMBLA to crack down on child pornagraphy.
It all boils down to whether one considers illegal immigration a crime or a mere human interest story. I consider it a crime with harsh longterm consequences for the country.
Gonzales will be the attorney general. So I suppose time will tell how he relates to the illegal immigration fiasco. My opinion is that he will further damage an already out-of-control situation. I honestly hope I am wrong.
 
Love or hate GWB, his choices for AG should be scaring all of us into some sort of grassroots campaign.

Ashcroft was beaten out of his congress (senate?) seat by a dead man, then given the role of AG. He thanked God by baptizing himself with cooking oil and then went on to begin an offence against the Bill of Rights. Just because at face the DoJ under him was supposedly pro-RKBA doesn't mean that your pet amendment isn't on the same block. After all, when the rest of your basic human rights that even those loathed dirty liberal hippies support are under assault, you can be sure that the one that helps keep the US government beholden to the people wasn't TOO far behind.

Now, he's out and we've got a new one. This one, thankfully, didn't lose his previous government seat to a corpse, no, instead this one basically told the White House that it was above the law, that the Constituion didn't have to apply if you just sort of squinted, and hey, its OK to torture those folks coz they're brown, or have oil, or wear different hats or whatever.

Anyone who claims to be a true American, who loves the ideals that this country supposedly stands for and who believes in a just and merciful God cannot possibly condone things like torture, under any circumstances. Thus, they cannot possibly agree with the nomination of someone who encouraged and supported our current leadership into perpetrating these crimes against humanity.

Think with YOUR mind, not with the Fox News' hive mind.
 
If you think the present immigration laws have been enforced, you are clearly out of touch with the border situation. The numbers of illegals who cross into the country on a daily basis is staggering. No one--even those who support illegal immigration--argue with that. I can not think of another example where the enforcement of the law has been allowed to break down in the manner that immigration has been allowed
Click to expand...
.

Thats all well and good, and I agree with you on those points, but the AG (Gonzalez, Ashcroft, whomever...) is not the problem. Place the blame where it belongs; on Congress for not appropriating enough money to INS to do the kind of job on the border we'd all like to see, and the President for his direction of INS and his policy on immigration. The AG only prosecutes the offenders, they do not sit out on the border trying to catch the border jumpers - thats the job of INS.

As far as La Raza, I wasn't aware of his association there or the mission of this La Raza group, but I'll look at it. Let me ask you this, however, does this group do anything other than promote services for illegal aliens? Just because Gonzalez is a member does not automatically mean he agrees with ALL their beliefs and activities. And just because he is or was a board member does not mean the positions taken by a majority of the board (and thus the organization) are representative of his own beliefs. I'm a registered Republican and have always voted Republican, but I do not agree with everything in the Republican platform. The reason I associate myself with the Republican party is because IMHO the good outweighs the bad - there are more issues on which I agree with the platform than those that I disagree. Can you cite for me where Gonzalez has personally advocated illegal immigration or the promotion of services for illegal aliens? Hell, I have friends who are board members of quasi-governmental corporations where they often disagree with the positions taken by the group, yet remain for other reasons (networking, business contacts, getting inside track info, resume building, etc.)

gfen - I am aware of some of his positions taken WRT prisoners and the Geneva Convention, and it does give me pause. However, as an attorney, its his duty to present legal options to his client (in this case the President) who makes the ultimate decision on a course of action. In some respects I think he's got a valid point - Iraq is asymetrical warfare and we're playing by the rules which have, to some degree, hindered our progress and resulted in American deaths. The insurgents do not play by the same set of rules and do not honor the Geneva Convention...just ask Nick Berg. At some point there has to be a realization that the rules of warfare, as we veiw them, are not appropriate in light of the complete disregard of those rules by our enemies. There also has to be an understanding that many of the old methods used to extract info may not work on enemies who are eager to die for thier cause. I'm not ready to throw all the rules out, but the Gonzalez memo at least explores the legal questions surrounding getting around the Geneva Convention if necessary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top