[sirchtruth]

If Frist doesn't use the Constitutional Option the repubs will lose agian...

This is worth fight for Repubs, do it!

[AbeKrieger]

I think Mr. Gonzales is a great AG and I'd very much like to see him complete his term there, and hopefully stay on to service President Bush's Republican successor.

Having said that, there are a number of superb justices who are more aligned with President Bush's mindset and all should be considered. We're going to be getting two for sure, three is a disctinct possibility, and four by 2008 is not out of question. Let's make sure they mold the court into one that is worthy of a conservative president who holds the right to pick them.

[gridlock]

Well, this makes me feel a little better about Gonzalez. We will have to see how this thing plays out.

In any case, the Donks are going to freak out, no matter what. A Supreme Court vacancy comes around once in a blue moon. It is extraordinary by it's very nature. They must fillibuster. They have no choice. This is their last remaining lever of power, and they are just going to have to pull it.

[Tribune7]

Anybody unwilling to overturn Roe should not be put on the bench.

[MBB1984]

Gonzales is at best a moderate. He is pro affirmative action and his record is pro-abortion rights. If Bush fails to appoint a true conservative, I have had it with him.

I might be able to support Gonzales as a replacment for Stephens, Ruth "Buzzie" Ginsburg, Souter or Bryer. But that's as far left as I could go.

[Noachian]

I've heard, on the Sunday talk shows, that Bush may put up someone who isn't a lawyer. Why is this a bad idea?

Being a Supreme Court judge is more politics than law, and installing a judge who only follows precedents instead of the Constitution puts us right back in the same hole we're in now. Stare decisis is a horrible substitute for actually reading the Constitution.

Someone from outside the legal industry may be a good idea, especially if he has a good grounding in the Constitution.

[Condor51]

"Alberto Gonzales personally opposes abortion."

So does John Kerry (allegedly).

[bad company]

Mark my words, Mr.Gonzales is the biggest head fake ever.

[Cboldt]

Ironically, Gonzales based his opinion in the case on his belief that he could not rewrite the law to suit his own views.

Heh. Like the Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 election. My point being that no court rewrites law.

The Texas decision discussed here was close. In my opinion, the majority, including Gonzales, incorrectly construed and applied Texas statutory law.

[Hardastarboard]

Ironically, their opposition may have strengthened Gonzales' position all the more. Bush sent that signal last week: "All of a sudden this fellow, who is a good person, is under fire. I don't like it at all."

Uh, Mr. Bush - how about saving some of that tough guy attitude for the Senators who are resisting your agenda, rather than getting tough with the people who elected you? That might actually advance your agenda. What a concept.

[xzins]

Most bothersome for social conservatives was Gonzales' answer to a question posed at a conservative forum last year where he was asked if existing legal precedent would prevail in reconsidering the 1973 landmark case that established abortion rights. He said "yes."

Can some lawyer explain to me why precedent SHOULD override the text of the constitution?

Why is it wrong to say a previous court was wrong???? I just don't get it.

[Condor51]

The heck with Gonzales.

Here's a current judge that would drive the RATS into apoplectic fits if nominated to the SCOTUS. Why ole Teddy would blow a gasket and need his bottle of Cutty Sark fed to him by I.V. - and his name has come up.

And not that it's important or anything (sarcasm), but this judge's legal credentials are AAA+ and there's no doubt as to which side of the fence he sits, and it ain't the middle or left.

J. Michael Luttig

[The Iguana]

Not a single mention at all of Gonzales's most telling slip - his pro-affirmative action intervention in the administration's brief on Grutter v. Bollinger.

[Ol' Sparky]

Karl Rove thinks the GOP can push that number even higher by reaching out to this huge and growing voting bloc, which is overwhelmingly pro-life, by the way.

How is nominating a pre-Roe Hispanic growing to help grow a voting bloc of Hispanics that are overwhelmingly pro-life?

[Digger]

His robust defense of Gonzales has put many top social conservatives in a very tough position where some may sit this one out. "I can't support him because of my constituency, and I can't oppose him because I can't hurt this presidency," social conservative leader Paul Weyrich said last week. Stay tuned.

See when you get old & lose your testosterone. (Does Paul know how hard that we conservatives have sucked it up to get to this point & now we want a compromise with Gonzales. NO WAY! Do it Bush & I am gone from the GOP forever.Guaranteed.

[Zack Nguyen]

Ironically, Gonzales based his opinion in the case on his belief that he could not rewrite the law to suit his own views.

The minority in that case claimed that this was exactly what Judge Gonzales and the majority had done - add to the law to suit their views.

[johnb838]

I want a war.