Regarding Caesar's Acta

Conscript fathers, the issue at hand seems quite simple to me. The question has been phrased in terms of supporting or denying the late, great Gaius Julius Caesar, but to me, this choice of words merely contributes to the problem. To set out the question itself as a battle between two sides does little more than create even more strife and disharmony than possibly necessary. I propose, gentlemen, that we disregard the fact that Caesar has chosen these men and simple judge each issue based on merit. Why must we approve or disapprove of the entire body of work as a whole, deciding such a vast number of decisions in one fell swoop? As painful and time-consuming as it may be, I think that the best possible solution is to judge each and every candidate based on merit, not on allegiance with or against Caesar.
While I’m well aware that Caesar appointed several outstanding Senators to future positions, many of whom deserve such opportunities and would more than likely serve the Republic respectably, a handful of Caesar’s benefactors have obviously turned out to be a painful and detrimental danger to our society. These men, so closely associated with Caesar during his life, obviously never should have been in charge of the Senate or given any power or responsibility whatsoever. The same may not necessarily be said for every single one of Caesar’s other appointments or mandates. While I’m all for caution and even a fair amount of skepticism regarding Caesar’s political leaders, we cannot allow the horrendous events of the last several weeks to force us into any rash, unnecessarily paranoid decisions on who should lead our Republic in the future. We cannot allow a handful of poor leaders – Lepidus, Octavianus, Dollabella, Antony – to spoil the chances for the handful of great leaders that may be on our horizon, regardless of whether or not Caesar approved of them or not.
Take, for instance, one of our current interim consuls, Aulus Hirtius, who has spent the last several weeks meticulously and painstakingly attempting everything he could to maintain a moderate stance and to direct the course of action of the Senate towards a livable compromise, even as so many here in the Senate made sure everyone knew they disapproved of his common sense and level-headedness. Now, this individual was appointed by Caesar and has since won over your approval to serve as temporary co-leader; in the interest of moderation, he has even opted to step down for the next election. My point is this, Senators, that Caesar appointed good politicians and crooked ones. We can’t assume anything, especially not that just being approved of by Caesar makes you a corrupt political, a repulsive traitor, or a threat to our future.
So, gentlemen, I repeat my proposal: for each individual, let us take into account, not their allegiances or relations to Gaius Julius Caesar, but instead their merit, their past actions, their loyalty to the Republic, their military glory, their words here in the Senate. For each specific foreign policy and each particular legislative initiative, let us consider not the source or the author, but instead the advantages and disadvantages of each measure within our current state of affairs. Caesar’s entire acta is unnecessary and dangerous to take up all at once; we must go on carefully, cautiously bearing mind the steps we have taken to get to where we are and where we would like for the Republic to be. Keep in mind, sirs, that after all that we have been through in the last several weeks – indeed for the last few generations – we still have several years of recovery ahead of us; marches on Rome and internal strife have not buried us entirely, and so we have reason to keep going, reason to be sure that Rome as we know it will live on, under the protection of our own appointees and our own legislative measures. We control our future now, gentlemen. Let’s not screw it up.