Posted on 07/01/2005 11:06:02 AM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
Novak is usually wrong
unfortunately politics is about getting only part of what you want.
you never get all of what you want.
Yes, Bush will be as big a failure as his father was if he nominated Gonzales. It will be his defining moment, a politicial disaster that will permanently stain his legacy.
All those extra voters and then some might stay home for elections to come. It would be little hard to get enthusiastic about a Republican party that allowed far left-wing policies to be implemented by judicial dictators for decades to come.
Too bad we can't clone Scalia.
Don't worry... The "V" word is involved with this seat on the Court. No one with a "P" will get the spot. So unless he gets a sex change operation, Gonzales doesn't qualify.
Gonzales is anti RKBA. That's all I need to know.
We've been electing Republicans for a decade and the conservative movement has virtually NOTHING to show for it. Government spending exploded in the first four years of the Bush administration, nothing is being done about illegal immigration and, now, we're accept nothing being done to fix the far-left wing, tryannical judiciary?
that i would like.
3 of the pubbies ussc appointees have gone liberal.
but the liberal appointees never do the like, go conservative.
Who is George W. Bush? Who is this man?
I agree but, at least, we could clonate a Thomas-in-white: Judge John Roberts (D.C. Circuit), a great man.
i agree.
but there are other realities.
my understanding was that president bush wants his friend gonzalez on the court.
and then there is the matter of latins in america. like fdr made jews feel at home with a couple of appointees, bush would act in a similar fashion and make mexicans feel at home in america.
OK, I'll give up private Social Security accounts if they'll stop slaughtering babies.
cute.
NO TO GONZALEZ!!
He is just another DOJ hack moving up in the ranks.
We need a Justice from OUTSIDE the beltway!
Good grief... it was one case that caused this controversy. In his opinion on that case, he stated several things...
"…the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the Legislature…. Legislative intent is the polestar of statutory construction. Our role as judges requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we might like to see enacted, and instead do our best (my emphasis) to discern what the Legislature actually intended."When he served as a Texas Supreme Court Justice, he ruled on just ten cases involving a state law that requires teens either to notify their parents before having an abortion or establish before a court that they are mature enough to be granted a judicial bypass. In eight of those cases, he ruled against the teens and did so even though the cases involved situations where the teen feared physical abuse from a parent."While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent’s right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute’s legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
"As a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect and guide their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the legislature has elected not to do so."
He also got alot of flack for saying he would support Roe v Wade as AG. Well, duh...since Roe v Wade IS THE LAW, he is only upholding the current law, that is his job. That DOES NOT mean he is pro-abortion. On the contrary, his opinions indicate that these cases troubled him deeply and he threw the ball back at the Legislature to correct the flawed law. The legislature came back the following session and did set a higher standard. Gonzales is a strict constructionist, and proved it in this case.
But another Souter or Kennedy would not be getting ANY of what you want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.