On the Senate floor in defense of Alberto Gonzales as AG this morning, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter made the case for Gonzales’s confirmation. His case: Gonzales is Hispanic. And because he is Hispanic, he will have a “broader” view of immigration, affirmative action, parental notification…. (Oh, goodie.)
When I was elected district attorney of Philadelphia sometime ago — 1965 — there was not a single Hispanic lawyer in Philadelphia.at that time I made an effort of outreach to bring minority representation into the district attorney’s office as assistants and couldn’t find a single Hispanic. So it is thought a great deal of progress here. Now there are Hispanics in state attorney general’s office, Solicitor General, but Judge Gonzales would be the first Hispanic to be attorney general of the United States, if confirmed.
He would bring, I think, a unique perspective because of his minority status. I think he would have a broader view, a different view on civil rights. We have an issue which is subject to some congressional oversight where some 762 alien detainees were rounded up after 9/11, and according to a report by the inspector general of the Department of Defense, there was never any showing of connection to terrorism or to al qaeda or to any reason for their detention. And while we know we live in a very, very dangerous world, there has to be some reason. It may not be as strong as probable cause for an arrest or probable cause for search and seizure or even sufficiency for stop and frisk, but there has to be a reason for detention, and that is something that I think Judge Gonzales might have some greater perspective on.
Judge Gonzales, I think, also would be expected to have a broader view on the immigration laws, being Hispanic and being from Texas, seeing the kinds of problems which are present both from the point of view of stopping illegal immigrants and also from the point of view of immigrants who come to this country who seek — who seek a better way of life.
Similarly, I think he might have some greater insights into voting rights.
He took a position broadly viewed as divergent from the administration on affirmative action in the controversial cases involving the university of michigan. Affirmative action, always a complicated, controversial subject, but one where differing views and a broader perspective is a quality I think that would be well-served in the Attorney General of the United States.
He also took a broader view on the issue of what was required on parental notification under the Texas statute, drawing oppositions from some on the so-called right of the party. There again, a little different view and a little broader view reflective of his background and reflective of his own attitudes…
Preview of his speech in support of Gonzales for the Court?