Posted on 11/11/2004 12:34:14 PM PST by Pikamax
(CNN) -- An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
"As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, in a written statement.
Bush announced Wednesday that he had chosen his long-time friend to replace Attorney General John Ashcroft, who is stepping down. (Bush picks Gonzales to head Justice Department)
Gonzales has worked with Bush since he was the governor of Texas -- serving as Bush's general counsel, then as Texas Secretary of State before Bush appointed him to the state's highest court. (Gonzales political fortunes tied to Bush's)
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Do you notice how it's all the really liberal news sites that are pushing this story? Do you also notice that none of them will link to the actual court opinion that they pull small quotes from?
From what I've pieced together from different news articles, what he did was not be an activist judge. That's what scares the likes of CNN. He made his ruling based on the law, not based on his personal opinions.
People like Judie Brown are an albatross around the pro-life movement's neck. Her knee-jerk, paranoid reaction to Gonzales only portrays the pro-life movement to the rest of the nation as a bunch of religious whackos who believe in total abstinance. The fact that Bush is the most pro-life President since the Founders is a foreign concept to them.
The silly evangelicals and pro-lifers actually think they are gonna get some real pull this time around . The only pull they got was the lever next to Bush's name. Now it's back to the closet for all real conservatives!
Poor Judie apparently doesn't even know what the case was about or entailed. It sure wasn't about it being a crime but rather did Jane Doe 5 meet the requirements as outlined in the Parental Notification Act passed by the Texas Legislature.... It was a 6-3 decision. Funny how she never mentions the other four cases prior to Jane Doe 5 where he voted to deny the bypass... I wonder why? Judicial activism isn't acceptable from either side of the aisle, imo and for the right wing to persue it makes them no better than the far left wing.
From the Opinion .....
B. The Statutory Proof Standard
In creating the bypass procedure, the Legislature delegated no authority to the courts to determine the grounds upon which to grant a bypass. Rather, it specifically enumerated the grounds that, if shown, require the courts to grant a parental notification waiver. Neither did the Legislature give courts authority to decide the level of proof a minor must show to prove that she is entitled to a bypass. And although the Legislature could have chosen to impose a higher standard of proof, such as by requiring the minor to establish the statutory requisites by "clear and convincing" proof or proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," it did not do so. Instead, it set the level of proof at the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard. (3)
Already?
The AG does more than interpret law. He gives legal advise to the POTUS. He will likely advise Bush that abortion should be legal. Gonzales is a liberal on social issues.
The Attorney General, as head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. The Attorney General appears in person to represent the Government before the U.S. Supreme Court in cases of exceptional gravity or importance.
from www.usdoj.gov/ag/index.html
He gives legal advise to the POTUS.
very true. Judie and ALL are really embarrassing to mainstream pro-lifers. I've read alot of things by Judie and her tone borders on hysterical. Typical of the MSM to get her reaction to Gonzales, rather than going to the mainstream, level-headed National Right to Life.
As AG he will have the Civil Rights division working for him. Hundreds of lawyers based in DC (many very liberal) that want to go after pro-lifers and EEO violators.
Gonzales is liberal on both issues.
If you like that then you should be happy.
You can't pack the government with 100% pro-lifers. I'm willing to reserve judgement until I see the totally of his appointments. Better Gonzalez is AG then Justice as long as a pro-lifer replaces Rehnquist. I'm partial to Luttig.
Better Gonzales as AG than Supreme Court I agree. Although he will still be able to do significant damage at the DOJ.
All this really just shows Bush's true colors. He seems to be a social liberal at heart.
Third time in the last week.
If you like that then you should be happy.
I voted for him too. But you can't blindly support everything he does.
Michele Maulkin is opposed to him too.
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
I too am hoping Gonzales does not force feed affirmative action and abortion down our throats. We shall see what happens.
Here's a Bob Novak column that sums it up nicely in my opinion.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030123.shtml
I don't usually post here unless something really bugs me. And this guy does.
Linda Chavez would be a better choice. A female Hispanic. And very conservative.
Perhaps he has promised to pursue Bush's policies rather than his own? I think Colin Powell said something similar. Still reserving judgement...
I posted the following in a reply up thread but I'll follow up with it here again..... The Jane Doe 5 case centered at least in part on the following:
From the Opinion .....
B. The Statutory Proof Standard
In creating the bypass procedure, the Legislature delegated no authority to the courts to determine the grounds upon which to grant a bypass. Rather, it specifically enumerated the grounds that, if shown, require the courts to grant a parental notification waiver. Neither did the Legislature give courts authority to decide the level of proof a minor must show to prove that she is entitled to a bypass. And although the Legislature could have chosen to impose a higher standard of proof, such as by requiring the minor to establish the statutory requisites by "clear and convincing" proof or proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," it did not do so. Instead, it set the level of proof at the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard. (3)
I'm all for interpeting the law as opposed to legislating from the bench. But he is a social liberal.
Hopefully he will not water down attempts to do away with affirmative action. And he won't use the Civil Rights division to go after pro-lifers.
We shall see.
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.