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]
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?
Yet he has already been deemed a "conservative nominee" by some. Hmmm....
You also are not interested in the fact that Roe-vs. Wade cannot be overturned by judicial decree from one judge, and are also apparently unaware that even the reversal of Roe vs. Wade would not overturn abortion, but merely send the decision back to the states. While we can assume that a few states like Louisiana and Utah would outlaw abortion, most state legislatures would not do so.
So, what I see here is an attempt to both smear Alberto Gonzales either because he is Hispanic or because he is the next target in the ever shriller anti-Bush rhetoric that has become all too common on this forum.
As most all readers know, I am a Bush suporter since the primaries. Do I agree on everything? No. I really, REALLY wish we had held out for school voutures. HOWEVER, unlike some people on this forum, I do not demand that everything go my way, 100%, or I will launch into a tirade.
So, what is your point in continuing to misrepresent Gonzales and pretending that you don't understand the explanations that several people have given you? Do you simply want to trash everything Bush does? Do you harbor a grudge against Gonzales? Or are you simply in the business of causing arguments in general?
It would be irrelevant to me but it would seem to strike him off the list as a strict constructionist.
Hank, Hank, Hank. That is the recipie for tyranny from the bench. After all, liberals have been deciding that laws were wrong for years and overturning them from the bench, in spiteful disregard for the Constitution. You would simply replace one rule of man with your own personal rule of man, instead of having to deal with the long, arduous process of changing the LAW instead of overturning it.
Appy Pappy does. Because we live in the Republic of Appy Pappy, home of the rule of men. Laws not required. Constitutions are window dressing. Emotions rule.
No, we don't. His opinion on these matters is irrelevant if the justice is not trying to make new laws like the liberals ones have done.
Do you simply want to trash everything Bush does? Do you harbor a grudge against Gonzales?
How is he a conservative again? Does he support gun rights? Does he support School Choice? These are all Constitutional issues. Where does he stand?
Why is it with the Bushies that questions are always met with attacks? "Don't question Bush. Just follow along".
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.