Gonzales to the Court? Doubtful.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of 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.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend