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 ...
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.
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.