Will President Bush select a pro-"choice" judicial nominee? Gonzales on short list? (scarry)

[Sun]

I just heard on WABC radio news that the candidates that President Bush is considering as U.S. Supreme Court nominees are John Roberts, J. Michael Luttig and possibly Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

Alberto Gonzeles is not pro-life, which worries me.

[Sun]

Enlighten me.

[deport]

Enlighten me.

---

Your google suddenly broken?.... I thought it was the enlightment tool.

[Sun]

I couldn't find it.

[deport]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/000224o.htm

It isn't a long read but does take some attention and rereads or at least it did for me. Legalese isn't my forte.

[Sun]

Thank you. I'll read it tomorrow as I have to get up at 4 a.m.

[deport]

Thank you. I'll read it tomorrow as I have to get up at 4 a.m.

---

Get the rest..... 4 a.m. isn't that far away.

[Sun]

Good morning, early morning blurry-eyed bump.

[Know your rights]

This is being discussed in the News forum: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1425923/posts

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Short version: Gonzales is on certain pro-lifers' s**t list because he applied the Texas parental consent law as written, not as those particular pro-lifers wished it had been written.

[Sun]

If interested, please see post #44. Here's an excerpt from the link:

"F. Respecting the Rule of Law

The United States Supreme Court has observed that abortion is a divisive and highly-charged issue. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 866, 869. Thus, we recognize that judges' personal views may inspire inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric. Nevertheless, the issue's highly-charged nature does not excuse judges who impose their own personal convictions into what must be a strictly legal inquiry. We might personally prefer, as citizens and parents, that a minor honor her parents' right to be involved in such a profound decision. But the Legislature has said that Doe may consent to an abortion without notifying her parents if she demonstrates that she is mature and sufficiently well informed. As judges, we cannot ignore the statute or the record before us. Whatever our personal feelings may be, we must "respect the rule of law." Casey, 505 U.S. at 868."

I don't like the fact that the COURTS decide if a minor is mature, or not anyway, and more so, when it results in the death of an innocent pre-born baby, as I am pro-life.

It seems as if "Big Brother" is raising America's children more and more.

[deport]

I don't like the fact that the COURTS decide if a minor is mature, or not anyway, and more so, when it results in the death of an innocent pre-born baby, as I am pro-life.

---

That isn't the issue as that is the way the legislation was enacted by the Texas Legislature.... Some how there has to be a method of determination..... be it age, demostrate maturity, understanding, etc.

In this case, maturity wasn't even the issue.

[Antoninus]

As far as I'm concerned, Bush's choice for a SCOTUS vacancy will make him either a hero or a villain in my mind. Reagan and Bush I could at least claim ignorance on some of their picks. David Souter seemed like an unknown quantity and Sandra Gay O'Connor has obviously been worn down by left and is not the same person she was when she was elevated.

With the Clinton administration, the extent and gravity of the culture war has been laid out quite clearly for all to see. For Bush II to nominate a pro-abortionist to SCOTUS would be an inexcusable betrayal.

[rwfromkansas]

Look, nobody really knows who is on the short list unless they are Bush himself.

I won't freak out unless we start getting articles saying sources inside say Gonzalez is going to be the pick.

[demkicker]

If Bush choses a pro choice judge, he may as well roll the red carpet out for Hillary next election. That action alone will tear the Republican party to shreds. I know he doesn't pay attention to polls, but surely he's not that stupid.

[rwfromkansas]

Of course, we need a court vacancy first.

We will see if we get one.

[rwfromkansas]

He wouldn't do that.

[demkicker]

I hope you're right. It's just that even though I know Bush has a good heart and is a religious man, I would really like to see some passion from the guy. This Durbin thing was the perfect opportunity, IMO, for him to go "off" & lose his temper. I really think it is time that he do that to spotlight the left and their traitorous agenda. He could tick off a list of obstructionist and harmful things the left are doing against our country (and pounding the podium in the process, but not like a Deaniac). I know he's got to pick his battles and the dems have put hurdles up everywhere for him. The Supreme Court is the biggest enchilada of them all and I hope he is prepared to do what needs to be done. He needs to pick this battle and win.

The American people know Bush "cares" about them and even though the media and rats have tried their best to smear him 24/7, it hasn't worked that well. Bush has the bully pulpit, but IMO, since 9/11, I've been disappointed that he's not used it as effectively as he should.

[rwfromkansas]

Definitely....I am a very relaxed guy on what Bush does usually since I hate getting worked up about too much.

But, the one thing I care the most about is the SCOTUS. If we get a retirement next week and he screws it up, it will be unforgiveable.

[Sun]

"As far as I'm concerned, Bush's choice for a SCOTUS vacancy will make him either a hero or a villain in my mind. Reagan and Bush I could at least claim ignorance on some of their picks. David Souter seemed like an unknown quantity and Sandra Gay O'Connor has obviously been worn down by left and is not the same person she was when she was elevated.

With the Clinton administration, the extent and gravity of the culture war has been laid out quite clearly for all to see. For Bush II to nominate a pro-abortionist to SCOTUS would be an inexcusable betrayal."

Yes, this will show if President Bush is really pro-life or not.

[Sun]

I quoted from the link that you provided that it was about maturity.