Contrary to Jim Boulet’s suggestion, I do not “concede” that anything in Alex Acosta’s record is a “problem,” real or otherwise. (My prior post is here.) I believe the administration made an excellent choice in nominating him for the position (and, based on his record, I would feel this way even if I did not know him personally). The comparison to David Souter is simply absurd. Alex has sterling conservative credentials.

As for Boulet’s specific concerns, I believe the facts show that Alex faithfully and effectively executed the Bush Administration’s policies on language access under E.O. 13166. Like it or not, the administration decided to keep this Clinton E.O. in place. As a deputy AAG in the Justice Department, the proper thing for Alex to do was to faithfully execute this policy, as I believe he did, or else resign. In his position, it would have been completely improper for Alex to subvert stated administration policy or otherwise act contrary to his legal obligations. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Alex advocated the administration’s position on language access, I would nonetheless contend that Alex’s views across-the-board are sufficiently sound to merit strong support.