MOMENT OF TRUTH
GOP MAJORITY
Appoint strict constructionist pro-life Judges. Without Clinton slick speak of what 'is strict constructionist' is.
There is no more 'Dashhole' to blame. The buck stops with President Bush.
Posted on 12/31/2002 6:39:08 AM PST by Afronaut
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:38:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the soft- spoken son of migrant farm workers, has emerged as the overwhelming favorite for a Supreme Court nomination in the months ahead, a move that would give President Bush a historic and politically powerful chance to name the first Latino to the nation's highest court.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Two of the major reasons why the GOP gets destroyed by suburban women and moderates in elections are because of vitriol in these areas. Maybe by exercising some pragmatism instead of doing the spittle spraying screams, it will easier to back out of some of the more liberal positions by electing Republicans instead of handing votes to Dems (who will demagogue the issues and expand the programs).
Neither was slavery.
Exactly HOW is he a conservative? Is he a strong conservative like John Paul Stevens?
Lott clouds U-M lawsuit
His resignation may alter Bush stance on affirmative action
By Jodi S. Cohen / The Detroit News
WASHINGTON -- The Trent Lott affair has complicated President Bush's decision whether to intervene in the U.S. Supreme Court's review of the University of Michigan's affirmative-action admissions policies, experts say.
If the Bush administration decides to oppose affirmative action, it must file a so-called Friend of the Court or amicus brief by Jan. 16.
Judging by past performance, most experts would have expected the administration to side with opponents of affirmative action. But the Senate majority leader's resignation after a lengthy national flap over apparently pro-segregation remarks may have changed that equation.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in late March on two lawsuits opposing U-M's affirmative-action policies. The court will decide whether a racially diverse student body is a legally acceptable reason for colleges and universities to give a boost to African-American, Hispanic and Native American applicants. Its decision could affect colleges and universities nationwide.
A brief from the administration would carry considerable force -- the weight of the U.S. Department of Justice and the extensive law enforcement and financial powers of the executive branch.
Solicitor General Ted Olson, who represents the president before the Supreme Court, is reportedly eager for the administration to take a stand against U-M's policies. But Bush's political advisers, and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, worry that an anti-affirmative action message would alienate Hispanic and African-American voters, who the Republican Party has worked to court over the years.
Bush has defined himself enought for me this year.
"'e said I transgressed a law. That's good enough for me with old Dinsey. 'e didn't want to nail me head to the floor. I 'ad to insist".
Gonzales would be a terrific Justice, and I hope Bush nominates him when the time comes.
The Bush-haters only want the "interpreted" when it suits their aims. A "strict constructionist", which "true" conservatives always say they want, is not acceptable if it does not fit in with their demands. While running for the presidency, George W. Bush stated over and over again that he would appoint "strict constructionists"...he is holding to his word, as I expected. Go, Gonzales!
My sentiments exactly. Would be nice to have someone else on the Supreme Court that is a strict "Constitutionalist" in addition to the several judges on there now. Don't want Supreme Court justices or any other judges "making" the law instead of interpreting the law whether it be liberal or conservative.
Have noticed over the years that when judges "interpret" instead of "make" laws, rulings come down in favor of conservatives the vast majority of the time. It seems that some conservatives haven't figured that out yet or refuse to acknowledge -- better to push one's agenda than recognize reality.
Gonzales is the one who crafted and announced the policy that the White House would no longer rely on the ABA's recommendations for judicial appointments.
A strict constructionist IS a conservative. Have you read his opinions?
Notice how this somehow gets lost when you only have one issue? Suddenly, the anti-Bushies want judges to re-write the law and become the activist judges the conservatives claim to hate.
The case in Texas regarding parental notification was a case of interpreting correctly what the Texas legislature had, however unintentionally, written.
I am always hearing from the Bush-haters about how they are only being consistent. Apparently consistency only applies when criticizing the President, and does not extend to looking at judicial standards.
Neither was slavery.
Slavery was ended by Congress and the President, as it should have been. Roe v. Wade should likewise be undone by legislative action. Beware trying to combat judicial activism with more judicial activism. Better to discredit the concept by not using it at all.
He can be a liberal constructionist depending on how he interprets the law.
This is a potential SC nominee that even a PRESIDENT HILLIARY! could live with.
After all - it fits in with her topsy-turvy, wacko view of the role of parents in society. You know, like a minor needs parental permission to obtain an aspirin from a school nurse, but not to go to the local PP abortuary to kill her child.
Yes, Hilliary! could support that.
Why no litmus test!? Why!!!? The leftists and liberals have a pro-abortion litmus test for all their nominees, but for some reason the conservatives are too stupid to have the same. One would think that a principled conservative would only support a nominee who doesn't think that that pureeing a baby and sucking it into a sink is a cool thing. Grisly murder is grisly murder and a litmus test should always be applied.
And if we're not attempting to overturn the demented and unconstitutional Roe v. Wade, then what the hell good are the Republican Party, the Republican majority in the House and Senate, and the Republican President and Vice President in the White House!!? More pork for our side!? Screw that.
The Republican Party, every 4 years at the national convention, reaffirms as a plank of its platform - its very core mission statement - the desire to overturn Roe v. Wade. Yet you say that they shouldn't even try, that the effort should be abandoned, that Republicans should only pay lip service to the goal but to, in reality, cease being the party that respects the sanctity of human life because that is more pragmatic.
You want to dehumanize it and call it an "issue" - as in "one-issue abortion voter". Well, those babies - those human beings whose hearts beat, whose brains function - are being murdered at a rate of 1.3 million per year. They're not just "issues" - they are defenseless, innocent human beings who are being slaughtered - sacrificed on the altar of convenience and lifestyle preservation.
You RINOs need to go find another party. Call it the Conservatives Who Think Abortion Is Just Dandy Party or something. Whatever - but you're not Republicans.
Blame the Texas legislature for the law in question, not the judge. It isn't a judge's proper role to overturn a bad law that is still in alignment with the Texas Constitution - or do you believe that judicial activism is bad, unless your pet cause is at stake? That is what Bork was referring to when he wrote about the Tempting of America - the temptation to throw off legal restraints in pursuit of an agenda.
I must say that you are being willfully obtuse. There are at least 5 replies explaining strict constructionism to you, but you keep changing the discussion...going from "how is he conservative" to "what's the difference between a strict constructinist vs. a liberal constructionist?"
It seems awfully much like you are trying to avoid saying you were wrong.
Some of the folks here are just asking for evidence. We can't look this guy up on acuratings.com :)
The Bushbots are a funny lot. If Bush says "yes", they all agree 100%. If he changes his mind and says "No", they agree to that 100% too.
Since "diversity" is so much more valuable than human life. < /sarcasm >
I'm hearing crickets here. If he's going to be on the SC, we need to know these things.
Nice try, but no stogie. I could slur you the same way, Hank, by saying that pro-judicial activism "conservatives" are no conservatives at all. Reality, as usual, is far more complicated than you or I acknowledge here. You can point at the Texas case decided by Gonzales and scream that he's pro-abort - yet should he engage in judicial activism to overturn a law BASED UPON HIS PERSONAL VIEWS? That is the road to judicial tyranny, IMO.
So why don't you turn down the inane Bushbot rhetoric and back up your position with facts and reason instead of slurs and emotions.
Whatever happened to just doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do? Anybody whose convictions are modified by the rise and fall of somebody else's political star must not have had true convictions to begin with. There are many things in life worth more than political expediency.
yet should he engage in judicial activism to overturn a law BASED UPON HIS PERSONAL VIEWS?
Q: Has he ever voted to overturn a law? Hmmm.......?
I'm hearing crickets here. If he's going to be on the SC, we need to know these things.
No, we don't. You ask those things of candidates for the Legislative and Executive Branches, as they create laws. But since he might be a judicial nominee, I simply want to hear that he will impartially and impersonally interpret the law and rule according to the law, NOT HIS OWN PERSONAL POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES. You're succumbing to activist temptation, Hank.
He eats bran, you should try it...
I'm sure there will be such information forthcoming, one way or the other, about his judicial background in Texas. Trying to make a point this early in a debate about a dearth of information is pretty asinine...
There is no more 'Dashhole' to blame. The buck stops with President Bush.
How else will we decide whether he is a conservative? He could be a liberal constructionist for all you know. He's going to be dealing with the Constitution alone. That's not a very strict set of laws. I want to know whether he thinks the Constitution guarantees us the right to own guns. Or the right to Life. Or the right to school choice. Or the right to work. Or the right to free speech without being arrested for "hate". I don't think that is too much to ask of OUR nominee.
Would that be a plus or a minus in your view?
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.