I expect to be killed for this diary, but this is just an impression I get.
When I first heard of Gonzales I had heard that he was a moderate. He was responsible for toning down the admin's brief against Affirmative Action in the Michigan case. A lot of conservatives are scared of Gonzalez, worried that he'll be another Souter:
"In the Senate, Republican staffers who share this alarm have taken to saying that 'Gonzales is Spanish for Souter.'...Solicitor General Ted Olson wanted the administration to say that the use of racial preferences to achieve diversity is constitutionally impermissible. Gonzales overruled him."
Now, I did not know the details of Gonzalez's actions regarding the torture and death penalty stuff. His briefs in Texas regarding the death penalty are abhorrent, just disgusting.
However, with regards to the torture actions, which are morally indefenseble, isn't that Gonzalez's job? I mean, wouldn't you expect a legal counselor working for the Bush Administration to try to find a legal defense for the actions of the Bush Admnistration? It could have been immoral, but that's what lawyers do sometimes. Now, granted, he could have resigned, but if you've known Bush for years and are close friends, you wouldn't resign over one disagreement at this point. He could've fought hard as hell against the Bush Admin actions (which is doubtful), but would Gonzalez being against it have changed any minds? It's possible that Gonzalez was never asked, only told to do his job: defend the administration. So, in sum, yeah, Gonzalez has strikes against him, but I am not going to lose sleep over seeing him in the Supreme Court.
Put another way, name one man in the Bush Administration who doesn't have his hands at least a little dirty.