Gonzales to the Court? Doubtful.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Reading Elizabeth Bumiller’s latest about how the Bush administration is gunning for diversity in its next Supreme Court pick reminds me of a question I’ve been meaning to ask: Even setting the much-discussed abortion angle aside, wouldn’t an Alberto Gonzales appointment cause serious, serious hassles for the administration? The Court, after all, will soon be hearing various cases concerning the president’s wartime authority, like, for instance, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld—on whether the Geneva Conventions apply to suspected terrorists, on what sort of military commissions can try those suspects, etc. Roberts, as we know, didn’t recuse himself from the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on this case (in favor of the administration) in July, which he probably should have done, but he’d certainly have to recuse himself, I assume, from the Supreme Court rematch. As would Gonzales, for obvious reasons.

Um, so that leaves a key case concerning Bush’s “wartime” authority in the hands of Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens. Is that really something this administration would let happen? Perhaps, but it seems very, very unlikely.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate