Posted on 11/10/2004 5:52:25 PM PST by 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.
The problem with Al Gonzales as AG is his failure to oppose racial preferences. He played a critical role in watering down the administrations 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.
No. 00-0224 IN RE JANE DOE
Opinion ofthe Court
ConcurringOpinion #1
ConcurringOpinion #2
DissentingOpinion #1
DissentingOpinion #2
DissentingOpinion #3
He's OK as AG but for SCOTUS we can do better. Miguel Estrada and Ted Olsen come immediately to mind.
Thanks for the link. Nice article with well reasoned opinions based on facts.
I don't have an opinion about Gonzales for SCOTUS. For AG, however, he's got the right mix of skills and there's no evidence that he's a liberal or even a squishy moderate, except on the one issue of racial preferences. If I was him I'm not sure I'd take the job. AGs in second terms are usually called upon to investigate the White House, and can almost never resist. Having come from the White House it will be even harder for Gonzales to resist investigations if he wants to avoid being called an apologist or shill for the President.
He'll take the job for the same reason Bush offered it, they are friends.
Thanks! I'm reading it now.
I'm a whiner - if Bush betrays me by putting a pro-choice individual into office (Supreme Ct. or Attorney General), I'm going to be very angry with him!
Yes, I'd say the Opinion and the two concurring opinions misinterpreted the legislature's intent of the law.
And obviously the Legislature felt that way too. I like Justice Hecht's comments about it:
"Why would six Justices on this Court ignore fifty-six legislators if they were trying to follow the law rather than their own personal views?
Nine senators and forty-seven representatives joined in the brief. I do not recall another case in which the Court received an amicus brief on behalf of so many legislators attempting to assist the Court in analyzing the legislative history of a statute, yet the Court dismisses the amici as being less than a third of the Members of the Legislature."
The Court's Opinion gave a weak response to that, I thought.
I see why the Court bashes Hecht so much--he's a straight-shooter. I agree with him that the Court's Opinion took much away from the Legislature's efforts and intent of this law.
And I see in the NRO article, the Court's Opinion was considered "far-fetched":
"In its first cases under the law, the Texas supreme court with Gonzales in the majority interpreted this judicial-bypass provision broadly. So broadly, according to one furious dissenting justice, that the law itself was gutted.
The dissenters made a strong case that the court's reading of the law was far-fetched. In Gonzales's defense, however, it should be noted that their predictions have not been borne out: Judicial bypasses have been rare."
But in my opinion it doesn't matter whether the judicial bypasses have been rare or not---the Court has done damage to the law. Their views are obviously not what the Texas Legislature had in mind when they spent those long weeks of hard work to get a good law in place.
So I dissent, and I question Gonzales and the others' judgment on this.
And I feel sorry that Judge Owen was cheated out of a federal judge position. She and the dissenters were right.
And I feel sorry that Judge Owen was cheated out of a federal judge position. She and the dissenters were right.
Yes, this is old news and more pressing things at hand.
I do feel that with the comments made by legislators while the law was still being written clearly shows their intent, and the Court misinterpreted.
Hope the weather clears for you. :)
To: Hispanic Achievers
Thank you for your support. Together we can build a single nation of justice and opportunity.
Warmest regards,
George W. Bush
aren't you the guy who called me names for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy? I guess it's ok to criticize him on other issues, though. (I actually agree with concerns about Specter and Gonzales. I hope this isn't a sell-out, but it doesn't look promising)
How about loyalty to those of us who voted for him and volunteered for him?
I guess it's ok to criticize him on other issues, though.
The issue was never the disagreement, only the method used to express it.
I agree 100% about Gonzales.
He might be great on the war on terror. But he has demonstrated he is willing to allow reverse discrimination to occur.
And all this talk about it being "safe" for him to be AG is short-sighted.
As AG he will determine the legal direction of the largest law firm in the country. Does the name Janet Reno ring any bells? The AG can do all sorts of legal damage to whatever group they decide to go after.
As AG he will advise the President and others in the executive branch. He's already advise the President to water down opposition to affirmative action in the U of Michigan case. He will surely do a lot more of this as AG.
He's also said the Constitution is a "living" document. ie: it can be modified through interpretation. Just like he "interpreted" the consent case in Texas.
And worse yet, this AG role is viewed by many as a warm up to putting him on the SCOTUS.
Now is the best time to hash out differences in the party. Some battles over isues like this can easily be patched up by the next round of elections.
If you are a true conservative, you should be against Gonzales being in any legal position in the Bush administration.
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.