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.
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.
Who is George W. Bush? Who is this man?
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.
If Bush nominates Gonzalez, he has lost my support.
FYI, Janice Rogers Brown quotes:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm
No to Gonzales. We can't have any more weak-kneed, undependable justices. They must be predictably and constitutionally sound.
If Gonzales is being used as a Hispanic vote-getting sop by Bush/Rove, it will be as damaging to us as the White House's perfidy on border security.
Heard on the radio a couple of hours ago that John Roberts is such a good legal mind (despite being conservative) that it'd be pretty difficult for the Dems to make a plausible case against him in terms of qualifications and astuteness.
Even though Novak opposes Gonzalez, he still seems to think that it would be "politically incorrect" to replace a moderate with a conservative.
To hell with that. We need all solid conservative appointments to SCOTUS. There must be no compromise on this issue. It's the most basic issue of all. The whole Bush presidency will be judged on his judicial appointments, and especially his SCOTUS appointments. If he screws this up, he is finished, and the Republicans can kiss their chances goodbye in 2006 and 2008.
A president has to save his political clout for the most important issues. There is no more important political issue than this one. The Democrats and RINOs in the senate must get zero pork for the next five years unless they go along with some solid appointments. Cut them off at the knees.
Janice Rogers Brown would be the PERFECT nominee. Remember the dems already considered here a "non controversial" nominee as part of the Senate compromise, so she will face literally no opposition, or else the dems will look like hypocrites...and will be angering a large portion of their base by filibustering a minority.
Brown is a GREAT conservative, bordering on Libertarian in her positions. We can guarantee that this ridiculous property rights ruling will be reversed if she gets on the court.
It is a testament to how far backward we have come as a nation that choices for the Supreme Court all have tidy little designators. We need a woman's seat (no, not Hillary's), a Black seat, a very liberal seat, a very conservative seat, a middle-of-the road seat, etc. It's all nonesense!
When someone steps down or passes away, the president gets to choose the replacement. If a conservative president wants to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg with Robert Bork, and there are 50 Senators who go along, then--Voila! it's done. When (and if) the dems are in office and they (God forbid) have a majority in the Senate, do you think they would replace a Center-Right Justice like Rehnquist with another of his ilk? More likely they would put up Maxene Waters.
A solid conservative is needed, not another closet liberal like Souter. Bttt.
~ sigh...Gonzales would make a great Justice.
I hope that it isn't but I have a feeling that its going to be.
I would prefer Janice Rogers Brown, myself.