AL GONZALES FOR AG?

Michelle Malkin's Blog ^ | November 10, 2004 | Michelle Malkin

[rmlew]

According to this article, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales is the leading candidate to replace John Ashcroft as Attorney General.

This column by Robert Novak, written in January 2003, suggests that Gonzales is no friend of conservatives. An excerpt:

Gonzales's views on affirmative action became widely known in Washington last year when, at a meeting of the conservative Federalist Society, he announced his support of preferences....
[When he served on the Texas Supreme Court, he] had pulled the Texas court leftward, including decisions favorable to trial lawyers on tort cases. What most disturbed conservatives was his majority opinion invalidating a statute requiring parental notification of abortion by a minor. Democratic senators who last year blocked confirmation of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen as a federal appellate judge repeatedly cited Gonzales's attack on her minority opinion as an "unconscionable act of judicial activism."

That alone led prominent Catholic conservatives and other foes of abortion to inform the White House that Gonzales is unacceptable for the high court.

Update: Over at The Corner, Roger Clegg writes:

The problem with Al Gonzales as AG is his failure to oppose racial preferences. He played a critical role in watering down the administration’s briefs in the University of Michigan cases, and generally has the reputation for being a squish on this issue. The Dems will try to extract promises during the hearings that he will continue this lackluster record; Republicans should push him to mend his ways. Specter will join the Dems.

[MEG33]

Needed over here with your W!

[COEXERJ145]

People on this forum who go ballistic over every little thing that President Bush does are the whiners.

"Oh, he didn't nominate Pat Buchanan to be AG, he isn't conservative enough for me."

"Bush wants immigration reform, I'm voting/voted for Tom Tancredo."

"Bush won't drop a nuke on Mecca, he is sucking up to Muslims".

"Bush says civil unions should be left up to the states, he is trying to court the fag vote."

"Bush won't round up and execute every illegal alien, so I'm going to go nuts on an Internet forum and vote for Tom Tancredo."

Sadly this is what a large number of people here say on a regular basis. Sure I've made it a bit sarcastic but the truth is not far from what I've said.

Gonzales will do fine as AG. He is not going to be writing laws or interpreting the laws. His job will be to enforce the laws, even the ones he might not agree with. Had he been appointed to the Supreme Court, it would be a different issue. AG is a job for a good lawyer and administrator who knows the law and will enforce it.

[WoodstockCat]

Oh how nice, yet another thread for all the whiners....

oh, but they are so few and far between since last Tuesday..(sarcasm intended)

[rmlew]

Do you want me to parody Bushbots?

I put in many weekends for Bush. I am a NYC Republican. I understand compromise.
I do not respect unneccesary sacrifices or pandering.
Gonzales will still be opposed by the left. No net gain.

[MEG33]

WOO HOO..CELEBRATE!..WE WON!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MARINES..OUR PRESENT WAS A GOOD CIC!

[Cedar]

'Democratic senators who last year blocked confirmation of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen as a federal appellate judge repeatedly cited Gonzales's attack on her minority opinion as an "unconscionable act of judicial activism."'

I'm glad he's strong aginst terrorism, but I wonder why he objected to her stand? From what I read, Owen would have made a great federal judge. Would that we had her as one now!!

Guess I need to read her opinion on this, and see why he objected.

[jwalsh07]

Gonzales never attacked Priscilla Owen by name in his opinion. In point of fact, he was probably referring to another judges dissent in that case.

I say that knowing that I could never support Gonzales for SCOTUS but if W trusts him as AG, I gotta go with W.

[sarah_f]

That Malkin is the daughter of LEGAL immigrants is probably too radical a concept (following existing Federal Law) for some here to contemplate.

[jwalsh07]

Gonzales never attacked Priscilla Owen by name in his opinion. In point of fact, he was probably referring to another judges dissent in that case.

I say that knowing that I could never support Gonzales for SCOTUS but if W trusts him as AG, I gotta go with W.

[florida one]

Gonzales was the White House Counsel who recommended Owen to the President for a lifetime appointment. They are kindred spirits. It is the Senate Democrats who are blocking her ascension to the federal appeals court.

Owen and Gonzales differed on one matter of statutory interpretation in a parental notification case and Gonzales criticized her views in his opinion. Ramesh from National Review looked into the case and found that it does not provide any evidence that Gonzales is not pro-life.

[Congressman Billybob]

Ignorance is no better a basis for taking a position among those who call themselves conservatives, than among liberals. Better you should oppose Gonzales for the sound of his name, than for a gross misunderstanding of what he's done with his life. At least that prejudice would be honest.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Roosting Chickens, and Results of the 2004 Election"

[rmlew]

Conservatives, who I trust, noted major problems in Gonzales's record. I supported him until I went to Ms. Malkin's website and did soem research based on the articles.

There was no prejudice involved. That is a far cry from those who support anything and everything the Bush administration does.

[Cedar]

Maybe just getting him in a prime exposure role is preparation for the SCOTUS? Or maybe I'm just a little too concerned ..:)

(Wish we could just vote these people in, and then not worry about it for 4 years....sigh..)

[Cedar]

Thanks for the information. That does present a completely different side to it (though his words sounded pretty harsh towards her).

Wonder why he wouldn't want parents to know if their kid was getting an abortion??

[mware]

From what I am hearing it is better for him to have the AG job. That gives the president the chance to nominate Miguel for the Supreme Court.

Leaky Leahy may just regret not giving him the vote in the senate.

[deport]

Wonder why he wouldn't want parents to know if their kid was getting an abortion??

---

That wasn't the issue in the specific case of Jane Doe 5..... The issue was did she [Jane Doe 5] meet the standard[s] as prescribed by law enacted by the Texas Legislature whereby she was entitled to bypass parential notification.

[florida one]

Best article you'll find on Gonzales.

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-ponnuru021103.asp

[Congressman Billybob]

I don't "support everything the Bush Administration does." On the Texas parental notification case, I read all the decisions in that case. I did so on the basis of my own knowledge of constitutional law (30+ years practicing before the US Supreme Court).

The Gonzales decision that some off-the-wall critics are getting excited about, is NOT about abortion. It IS about judges not rewriting the law to suit their personal interests. And after that decision, the Texas legislature DID rewrite the law along the lines that Gonzales discussed.

In short, anyone who holds to the conservative position that judges should apply the law, but not WRITE the law, should be strongly in favor of Gonzales. Such folks should not be sniping at Gonzales from the sidelines. That sniping is what I'm calling "ignorance."

Congressman Billybob

[Cedar]

If you feel like laboring (no pun intended) with me and letting me know just what Texas says is entitlement not to tell your parents about an abortion, that would be great.

If it's too detailed, that's okay. No problem...I can just go do the research myself (and maybe understand the legal language?)...:)

[Cedar]

Thanks for the link. Very good article.