The Gonzales case

Re “Gonzales remains in the spotlight,” April 23

The failure of Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales to step down only echoes an attitude that’s been popularized by our president. Gonzales is answerable, in his opinion, only to the president. George W. Bush in word and deed is answerable only to himself. Anyone who witnessed Gonzales’ performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee could only imagine that, at the end of the day, he would be forced by conscience or consensus to resign. But so far his resignation has not been forthcoming. Why? Because the only voice he responds to is that of our commander in chief, who was, somehow, satisfied by his testimony. If the country’s top cop is not sensitive to his moral failure, ethical compromise or craven leadership, how can we expect law enforcement to resonate with the force necessary to be effective?

Gonzales serves to remind us that we no longer live in a democracy but in a monarchy. But more important, that fish stinks from the head.

MARLANE MEYER

Los Angeles

*

Re “After Gonzales,” editorial, April 23

President Bush has reiterated his support for Gonzales following the attorney general’s testimony in the Senate. I’m not sure what the president was watching, but it couldn’t have been what I saw. As repeated by Republicans and Democrats, it would be best if Gonzales resigned. It is one thing to support a friend, but it is a whole other thing when that support leads to the denigration of the United States. It is clear that Bush is incapable of recognizing reality.

RICHARD

SCHOENBERGER

Los Angeles

*

Re “One branch justice,” Opinion, April 19

Jonathan Chait is right. Middle America’s lack of indignation stems from a failure to discern what line, exactly, has been crossed and who has crossed it. The nature of the problem is niggling. Yes, the president is empowered to remove appointees at his sole discretion; this ensures that U.S. attorneys are ultimately held accountable to the people.

This demand for accountability, however, reflects a much more deeply held American democratic ideal -- that the law is impartial, that justice is blind. Gonzales crossed a line by attempting to steer the law in favor of a more politically focused justice.

Americans should voice their resentment lest they lose ownership of their laws in the mere guise of accountability.

KEVIN T. FREEMAN

Rancho Cucamonga

*

Chait points out the real issue in the firing of the U.S. attorneys: “It’s about whether the Bush administration sought to subvert democracy by turning the federal judicial system into a weapon of the ruling party.”

So, the question remains, should Gonzales be the scapegoat in this game of politics, in spite of his otherwise adequate job performance and possible intervention to keep most of the other U.S. attorneys when he could have fired them? If anything, Gonzales might be guilty of excessive loyalty. But contrary to former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the consensus is that he did nothing legally wrong.

RAUL FIELD-ESCANDON

Long Beach