Posted on 07/17/2005 2:10:32 PM PDT by dangus
Suppose the President nominated someone to a cabinet post, whom the opposition party argued was totally unfit for the position. Shortly after a very bloody, furious battle, the President considered moving him from that post, where he’d serve for just a few years, to a lifetime appointment. The opposition would take such a move as a smack in face, a deliberate provocation to an all-out political war, wouldn’t they?
Forgetting political ideology, you would think the Democrats would be absolutely outraged if President Bush were to nominate Attorney General Albert Gonzales to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t you? After all their condemnations that he doesn’t respect the rule of law, ad looking at how much they staked their political reputations on defeating him?
Why, then, are they positively giddy at the prospect of Gonzales being appointed? Because they know a liberal when they see one.
Gonzales supports gun control. He convinced the Bush administration to support affirmative action, but did not support people fighting to keep their homes from being stolen by the government to be given to developers. And, as demonstrated by his In Re Jane Doe cases, he is a pro-abortion judicial activist.
Defenders of Judge Gonzales disagree with that last assertion. To the contrary, they argue that the ruling demonstrates that Gonzales is an opponent of exactly the kind of judicial activism which is necessary to defend Roe. They point to his claim in the his decision that any other action "...would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”
But just because Gonzales claims he was opposing judicial activism, doesn’t make that so. Several legislators were concerned that the courts would not approve of a law which simply required parental consent to obtain abortions. They included a clause permitting a judge to determine that a minor was sufficiently mature to obtain an abortion without parental consent. The first judge in the case found that the minor in question was not mature. This was a finding of fact. What Gonzales did was not simply to overturn an incorrect decision; he threw out this finding of fact, which the dissenting judges claimed was a case extreme judicial activism which had never been done. Any question of the legislative intent was answered when the legislature angrily wrote legislation to undo Gonzales’ ruling.
Gonzales’ reference to judicial activism demands that he, and any judge, presume that an underage girl should be able to get an abortion without parental consent, unless the law specifically says otherwise. But the law does say otherwise: it requires that she be mature. And countless other laws show that the state considers a sixteen year old girl to not be mature: Sixteen-year-olds cannot participate in democracy. They cannot serve their country in war. They cannot buy cigarettes, consume alcohol, watch violent or sexual movies, rent an apartment, enter contracts, take out loans, or decide not to attend school. Their parents or guardians are responsible for them, and their important decisions.
Of course, the law does recognize that some minors may be mature enough to make certain important decisions, so judges can, for instance, grant emancipation to a minor from her parents.
Exercising Judicial discretion is not activism. It is what makes a judge a judge, and not merely an administrator. Activism is when a judge becomes a legislator.
The Texas legislature granted judges the authority to use such discretion. For a judge to not permit the abortion was not judicial activism; it was following the law as written. By using extremely unusual methods to claim jurisdiction, overriding a finding of fact, and then overturning the expressed will of the State of Texas, Judge Gonzales was extremely activist.
Al Gonzales is not conservative. He is not even moderate. He is a liberal who has contempt for the will of the people. The Democrats know one of their own.
If Bush nominates him, the dems will demagogue away for a few days, calling him extreme, out of touch etc...and then they'll vote for him. No one will be able to call them obstructionists after that -- at least, not on Meet the Press or any ofthe other Sunday shows.
Both Juan Williams and the gal from the Boston Globe picked him this this morning on Fox. And then... so did Brit!
I would expect that George Bush has a better read on his friend of 25 years than the liberal dems or MSM.
It's not a question of mind-reading; it's a question of reading his decisions. Besides, if Bush does pick someone who appears to be a liberal, is that better evidence that his pick isn't liberal, or that Bush doesn't really find his liberalism all that important?
I have little faith that Bush will do the right thing and pick a constitutionalist. I dont see the leaky borders closing and right now we should be kicking some ass in Syria and even Saudi Arabia and Non citizen middle easterners should be on planes heading out of the country.
and the funny thing is.....BUSH WAS THE BEST CHOICE IN '04.
more than depressing.....
Here are my thoughts on the matter:
Bush will NOT appoint Gonzales to replace a moderate or a conservative.
The most likely pick for the O'Conner pick will be either Garza or Clement.
When the Chief retires, a second conservative will be appointed.
When one of the libs retires, either Ginsburg or Stevens, Gonzales will be appointed.
Stevens will be almost 90 by the time Bush leaves office. The oldest Justice to ever sit was Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was 90 when he stepped down. BUSH WILL NAME his appointment.
The socialist, atheist, anti-american Ginsburg has had cancer a couple of times and will either die or retire.
Bush will put 4+ judges on the court. Why would he lead off with a liberal???
Gonzales isn't a liberal. Get a clue.
On Chris Wallace's show on Fox that Brit moderated today, Nina the lib from the Boston Globe and Juan Williams both endorsed Gonzales. That should tell you anything you need to know about why conservatives DON'T want him.
But he's not a Christian either. I would like to see someone like Justice Roy Moore in the Supreme Court.
How do we know that Gonzales isn't a Christian?
Welcome to earth...
What planet are you from.?.
If I knew nothing else about him, his recent statement that:
"The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is."
... automatically disqualifies him. That is NOT the statement of a Constutionalist, a Conservative, or even a thoughtful, intelligent, or person who should be on ANY court, let alone the SCOTUS.
I am just guessing... When Attorney General John Ashcroft took his office, he ordered The Spirit of Justice, a naked female statue, to be covered with a curtain. When Gonzalez took over, he removed the curtain.
Not a lot to go on. I think it is in very poor form to accuse someone of not being Christian without solid evidence. I don't think naked statues does it.
Why would Bush appoint Gonzales to replace ANYONE, liberal or conservative?
The fact that Gonzales is suddenly the choice of all of these liberal TV talking heads should proclaim the obvious:
Alberto Gonzales is a potential John Paul Stevens or David Souter in waiting. If appointed, he could be on the court for three decades, and be replaced in thirty years by a liberal president. That translates into at least a half-century mistake over one appointment.
George W. Bush has worked too hard to get himself and the Republican Party in this dominating position. He's not going to blow it just to appease Teddy, Hillary, and Chris Matthews.
I can't imagine it in my worst nightmare.
Yea, this "Two-Party Cartel" is a hoot. If GW doesn't nominate a true conservative you will see this total elite dominated CONgess as it is. Then maybe the sheeple will vote outside of it.
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.