and he's damn sure NO friend to gun owners either!!!
Posted on 07/06/2005 3:17:36 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
The link for finding Gonzales outspoken criticisms of fellow Judges Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen is:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1726
Gonzales is WEAK on PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. two examples: 1) While he was WH Counsel, the WH sided with the City of New London on the Kelo case, or refused to join on Kelo's side in an amicus brief.
Secondly, a quick search found this case where Gonzalies joned the majority in SHARPLY opposing Janet Rogers Brown's dissent (they were both on the Texas Supreme Court at the time) (Source: People for te American Way, via Google search):
FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000)
Gonzales joined a 6-3 ruling by Justice Baker that struck down a state law that allowed certain private landowners to exempt themselves from municipal water-quality and other environmental ordinances by creating their own "water quality protection zones." The majority ruled that the law constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to private individuals. Owen wrote a vigorous dissent claiming that the majority’s opinion "strikes a severe blow to private property rights." Id. at 889. The majority specifically criticized Owen’s dissent, explaining that most of it "is nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric," and that "the two legal arguments Justice Owen does make are both based on a flawed premise." Id. at 877 (emphasis added).
(Excerpt) Read more at pfaw.org ...
You can't criticize the views of any Hispanic person?
Ok. Heads up nevertheless.
My deep and profound concern really comes from Gonzales' specific failure to join with Kelo on the New London landmark Private Property 5th Amendment TAKINGS case while WH Counsel, and his office having sided with the City ("the takers") and its allies.
If so, as I was told, this represents a grave weakness on Property Rights, both as WH COunsel, and as AG, and as a potential USSC nominee.
My deep and profound concern really comes from Gonzales' specific failure to join with Kelo on the New London landmark Private Property 5th Amendment TAKINGS case while WH Counsel, and his office having sided with the City ("the takers") and its allies.
If so, as I was told, this represents a grave weakness on Property Rights, both as WH COunsel, and as AG, and as a potential USSC nominee.
Another good point. Thanks.
George W. Bush always tells the truth, I think.
La Raza supports Gonzales:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1289864/posts
Here are a couple threads about his position towards the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329455/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325501/posts
I may have misunderstood the nature of your comments. I thought you were implying that I was merely criticising Gonzales for his ehtnicity. You apparently mneant something quite different. I am truly sorry that I took your comments wrongly and hereby withdraw my Abuse filing.
Apparently we both AGREE on the policy matters (and Alberto G.'s historical writings) in making him a suboptimal choice for the Court.
Sorry again for misconsturing your remark.
Excellent links on La Raza and Gonzoles being weak on the 2nd Amendment (Right to Bear Arms).
The Right to Bear Arms is certainly related in some manner to the Right to Protect Private Property from Arbitrary Takings (5th Amendment, last sentence).
Many thanks!
I think you meant to send post 50 to Porterville.
I recall something about securing the borders,though , said by W in State of the Union after September 11th,2001 , oh well , not very important , nevermind , I'm just a stickler for kooky little details that don't matter.......
Overreacting? Not happened yet? In my opinion, almost nothing is as cirically important as a lifetime USSC appointment. (Look at GHWB's deeply regrettable, for decades to come, appointment of "Stealth" Justice David Souter, if you don't get the point.)
An ounce of prevention is worth more than a ton of cure, Mom. At least my Mom says so..
<;^)
Best regards, FTP
Context, smontext. Read them.
Res ipsa loquitur. ("The thing speaks for itself.")
I will concede, however, that Gonzales has said many, many worthy and excellent things,
---- its just when he goes off the Strict constructionist reservation (often enough) as a Judical Activist (yes) that he becomes clearly dangerous and undesirable as a potential USSC nominee.
Thanks for the Hannity show information re: Gonzales' comments on illegal aliens.
Quoting you:
La Raza supports Gonzales:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1289864/posts
Here are a couple threads about his position towards the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329455/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325501/posts
Thanks again for this information and these links, particularly on the 2nd Amendment.
Responded to extensively. Corrected 3 times.
and he's damn sure NO friend to gun owners either!!!
I MAY have misunderstood the nature of your comments. I don't think so, however.
I thought you were implying that I was merely criticising Gonzales for his ethnicity, as implied by the "Another Sipanic BAD Hispanic Thread-- Yawn" comment.
Apparently at least one other poster thinks we both AGREE on the policy matters (and Alberto G.'s historical writings) in making him a suboptimal choice for the Court.
Sorry again for misconsturing your remark, IF I did, which, upon re-re-reading I don't think I did.
50 posted on 07/06/2005 4:10:32 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Gonzales iappears to be quite WEAK on Property rights!)
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.