AL GONZALES FOR AG?

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

[deport]

I'll give you the Opinion and the two concurring opinions plus the three dissenting opinions..... It's a split decision 6-3.... The Gonzales concurring opinion is #1. By the way Gonzales denied bypass in the four previous cases he was a party to prior to this one.

No. 00-0224 IN RE JANE DOE
Opinion ofthe Court
ConcurringOpinion #1
ConcurringOpinion #2
DissentingOpinion #1
DissentingOpinion #2
DissentingOpinion #3

[jwalsh07]

Actually, Gonzales does not have a long enough compilation of wiritngs to be sure what he would do as a member of SCOTUS.

He's OK as AG but for SCOTUS we can do better. Miguel Estrada and Ted Olsen come immediately to mind.

[JanetteS]

Thanks for the link. Nice article with well reasoned opinions based on facts.

[florida one]

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.

[jwalsh07]

He'll take the job for the same reason Bush offered it, they are friends.

[Cedar]

Thanks! I'm reading it now.

[Darth Gill]

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!

[COEXERJ145]

Then go whine with the rest of the Buchananites. Supreme Court I would agree, AG position means jack.

[Cedar]

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.

[deport]

And I feel sorry that Judge Owen was cheated out of a federal judge position. She and the dissenters were right.

---

In your opinion and like mine it doesn't matter squat... I still prefer some one who stays away from trying to write law from the bench..... 56 legislators huh?..... Well that is a minority by far in the Texas Legislature. There are 150 Representatives and 31 Senators...... And trying to develop legislative intent after fact when they could have wrote it correctly the first time... Yep seems like attempted judicial activism to me which I don't like from either side the aisle.

The Pro Life groups in Texas have been successful in each legislative session in moving the Movement forward with changes in legislation. We now have Republican majorities in each branch that we didn't have back when this all began. It's a balancing act to keep it within the guide lines such that it isn't in violation of the Federal statues... There was another suit filed I think in 2002 challenging the entire process but I'm not sure if or how it was resolved.

Now that we've beat this issue to pieces on to the next one.... lol. You have a nice day today. I'm going to go put some road miles in on the bike before the forecasted rains come if they get here later on...

[Cedar]

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. :)

[TERMINATTOR]

A signed picture from the White House, presented to Alberto Gonzales and the Hispanic Achievers.

To: Hispanic Achievers

Thank you for your support. Together we can build a single nation of justice and opportunity.

Warmest regards,
George W. Bush

La Raza endorsement

[churchillbuff]

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)

[nickcarraway]

How about loyalty to those of us who voted for him and volunteered for him?

[TERMINATTOR]

Harvard Law School address by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, 06/05/2002 (Real Audio)

[rmlew]

aren't you the guy who called me names for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy?
Generally, I don't call people names.
I did so on one occasion, and followed up by saying that it was unfair to do so, but that I was responsing in kind to a slur made against neocons.

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.

[siliconpatriot]

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.