He could be the next Supreme Court justice

USA TODAY ^ | 3/18/02 | Joan Biskupic

[lepton]

Wait a minute, isn't Speedy the one who voted to allow a minor to have an abortion without the consent of her parents while he served on the Texas Supreme Court?

Texas has a law on that, where the courts have to make decisions to allow or disallow that on a case-by-case basis. Gonzales was on a court that heard several cases where a plaintiff was trying to make use of the law. Some votes were yes, some were no, in accordance with the law. This then comes down to whether the Judge is to over-rule a bad law because he disagrees with it, or rules in accordance to what the law actually says. Since it has been decided at the SCOTUS level, that abortion is legal, ruling it illegal is not an option for him.

Also, actions to universally vote against abortion would likely have the result of minors MORE easily getting access to abortions without their parent's permission, as the judges rulings got blasted out of there.

[lepton]

Yes, he has one. And it's pro-abortion.

No, it's pro-law.

[capitan_refugio]

Not so. The dumb-o-crats would not have the cajones to vote, en mass, against an hispanic nominee.

[Howlin]

One of Gonzales' most controversial actions in that post was helping to get George W. Bush excused from jury duty in 1996, a situation that could have required the governor to disclose his then-secret 1976 conviction for drunken driving in Maine. Gonzales suggested to the judge and defense lawyer that if Bush served, he would not, as governor, be able to pardon the defendant in the future.

Is it just me, or is that a VERY valid reason, and not necessarily to prevent Bush from disclosing his ticket?

[rightwing2]

Some Republicans initially feared that Gonzales might be a "stealth liberal" like David Souter, who was named to the Supreme Court 12 years ago by Bush's father. To the dismay of many Republicans, Souter, 62, has become one of the four liberal justices on the nine-member court.

This guy is no moderate! Gonzales is a scary pro-abortion liberal as may be witnessed by his judicial decisions while on the Texas Supreme Court which included torpedoing even the tepid parental notification bill championed by then Governor George W. Bush. Gonzales is the Latino David Souter and would be a disaster for this country and the pro-life cause! Of course, he is doing his best to try to obscure his liberal positions on social issues and endear himself to GOP moderates and moderate conservatives in the Senate who would be key to supporting his nomination by Bush for the next Supreme Court vacancy. His nomination as a Supreme Court judicial nominee would be just one more BigTime Bush Administration disappointing betrayal of pro-life conservatives.

[Sid Rich]

"Gonzales is a scary pro-abortion liberal as may be witnessed by his judicial decisions while on the Texas Supreme Court which included torpedoing even the tepid parental notification bill championed by then Governor George W. Bush."

How does applying the law as written translate to torpedoing legislation? Justice Gonzales was not in the legislature drafting the law. I thought strict constructionism was a tenet of the conservative movement?

[Gritty]

... Gonzales was admitted in 1975 but left the (Air Force) academy for Rice in 1977...

This one made me sit up and say,.... Hmmmmm!

It is unusual for cadets to leave after their first year for reasons other than academic failure or perhaps an Honor Code violation. Neither was specified, except he "left for another challenge". Although this is not impossible, IMHO it is not very likely, especially as he was an Air Force enlisted man prior to his acceptance in the Academy and would probably want to finish what he had started and worked so hard to achieve. He certainly knew what the Air Force was all about when entered the Academy.

What is his real reason for leaving? If it were an Honor Code violation, be sure the Democrats will find out about it and crucify him for it when the time comes.

[Steve0113]

No more baby-killers on SCOTUS, please.

Amen.

[Dan from Michigan]

I can name four EXCELLENT judges for SCOTUS.

Maura Corrigan, Stephen Markman, Robert Young, and Cliff Taylor. 4 Michigan Supreme Court judges.

[denydenydeny]

The thing that comes to my mind is the Hispanic aspect.

The Democrats know that there will be a big-time political price to pay for a nationally-televised Pickering-style humiliation of the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee in history by ten rich white people.

The race card works against the Democrats here.

[The Old Hoosier]

No, it isn't. Go read his decision, then read the dissent of Justice Priscilla Owen, and you'll see why you're wrong. Gonzales is a bench-legislator.

[helmsman]

Since it has been decided at the SCOTUS level, that abortion is legal, ruling it illegal is not an option for him.

The Supreme Court's decision was an unconstitutional one that a conscientious jurist need not apply strictly, as exemplified by the "no" votes in the Texas case. The conflicts that result between lower courts concerning various abortion restrictions passed by legislatures also serve to prove that judges regularly apply Roe V Wade and Casey in very different ways. Scalia has mentioned this phenomenon is his abortion dissents. So, Gonzales is obviously pro-abortion. The only question is, are conservatives going to roll over once more while a Souter clone in a sombrero is put on the Supreme Court -- right when we are within a vote or two from finishing Roe.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[lepton]

No, it isn't. Go read his decision, then read the dissent of Justice Priscilla Owen,

There are at least 5 cases on the mentioned issue that he was involved in ruling on. The votes were varied...but those attacking him just pick and choose. I saw all of this while Bush was running. The arguments were pretty much resolved then.

[lepton]

WADR, do you know what the cases referred to are about?

[helmsman]

It is plainly clear that the Texas supreme court, by demanding that a girl's "emotional health" -- as well as other broad factors -- be considered as justification for a bypass to have an abortion, was nakedly gutting the Parental Notification Act. The dissenting Justices critically observed that, in effect, a young lady could now obtain her abortion for simply believing that her parents would object! Pro-abortionists have used variations of this tactic to try and gut bans on late-term abortions by requiring the inclusion of large mental or physical "health" exception loopholes in any legislation, thereby allowing abortions for just about any reason despite the ban. In this case, it was pro-abortion judges doing the gutting, instead of pro-abortion whores in the legislature. No difference.

[Tickle Me Pank]

That wasn't their ruling at all. The case in question turned on whether or not the girl had sufficient information and maturity to make her own decision (after meeting other requirements that were not in dispute).

The bypass was passed as part of the PNA, and it certainly isn't evident by any reading of the legislative history that the leg meant to make it impossible to obtain a bypass. The Texas pro-lifers are just whining because they didn't get the law that they wanted passed.

[Abn1508]

What is his real reason for leaving?

Well, one thing that comes to mind is that the AF Academy in the early 1970s was filled with bigots. Not a huge, deal, so was the USMA, but I don't know a single Hispanic that _survived_ the AF Academy in the early 70s. There's a time to cut your losses; I suspect he realized that fast (especially as an ex enlisted) and tipped his hat as he went over to Rice.

Alternatively, he might just have realized he didn't want to deal with fighter-jocks the rest of his life. Or be one.

[lepton]

The major criticisms were that the law specified that a relevant person be "mature", and the lower court ruled that since she was a minor that she legally wasn't mature enough for the "parental notification act" to be applied; and defined "sufficiently well-informed".

There were multiple cases, somne of which Gonzales voted against, but activists pull out only this one.

I disagree with the validity of the girl's description of why she must not have to advise her parents, but Gonzales' record is not as is often described.

[helmsman]

That wasn't their ruling at all. The case in question turned on whether or not the girl had sufficient information and maturity to make her own decision (after meeting other requirements that were not in dispute).

Bull. The new guidelines throw the barn door open for judges who wish to grant the bypass for any or no real reason. This is a tried and true pro-abortion tactic. What they cannot achieve politically, they achieve through the courts via their lawless allies on the bench.