Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
To: National Desk
Contact: Amber Matchen of the American Life League, 540-903-9572 or amatchen@all.org
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, issued the following statement in response to news that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales is being considered as the replacement for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft:
"President Bush appears to be doing all that he can to downright ignore pro-life principles. There can be no other explanation for his recommendation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Gonzales has a record, and that record is crystal clear.
"As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime. Choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population -- preborn babies in the womb.
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter... The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.' Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.
"President Bush claims he wants to assist in bringing about a culture of life. Such a culture begins with total protection for every innocent human being from the moment that person's life begins. Within the short period of one week, the president has been silent on pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter's desire to chair the senate judiciary committee, and has spoken out in favor of a judge with a pro-abortion track record to lead the Justice Department.
"Why is President Bush betraying the babies? Justice begins with protecting the most vulnerable in our midst. Please, Mr. President -- just say no to the unjust views of Alberto Gonzales."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
It is the event that is the absolute prerequisite to being a "person" under common law.
If you can't readily name that event from the description above, you are arguing from a point of abject ignorance on this issue, and all your table-thumping about the 5th and 14th Amendments will do you no good.
Please state your position more clearly, and please don't instruct me as to which literary device i should use to answer you.
If you cannot handle a little sarcasm, then maybe you should grow a slightly thicker skin.
i think you mistated this sentence. Please reword it so i'll be sure what you're saying.
btw, do you believe that any statutory law that deprives citizens of their constitution, civil rights should be overturned?
I hate to tell you this, but you should not comment on others' writing lacking clarity when your own is so poor.
There is a fundamental defect in common law that affects all right-to-life cases. This defect must corrected in statutory law. It goes back to the event I asked you to name above.
Now, either you're an ignorant individual, or you know what I'm talking about and are hell-bent on dodging the issue.
Gonzales will NEVER be nominated to the SCOTUS.
No it is NOT a small issue.
But there are those that don't trust anything the President does.
He didn't appoint Gonzales off the top of his head.
And he knows more than we do. I trust the President to make the right decisions. That's why I voted and campaigned for him.
1) Bush discussed his plans for temporary worker programs in the debates. If you missed that, and still voted for him, that is your fault.
2) Bush has clearly wanted Alberto Gonzales to move higher since arriving in DC. Again, if you thought he was one to dump friends aside, you voted for the wrong man.
You can read the ruling here. A couple of excerpts:
Legislative intent is the polestar of statutory construction. Our role as judges requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we might like to see enacted, and instead do our best to discern what the Legislature actually intended. Once we discern the Legislature's intent we must put it into effect, even if we ourselves might have made different policy choices.Clearly, he was not pro-abortion in the matter, he was for strict constructionism and against judicial activism, which is a good thing. More on Gonzales:< snip>
It is important to appreciate that the Legislature adopted a statutory scheme that subordinates parental rights in the case of a mature and sufficiently well informed minor, even if the minor has an ideal relationship with her parents, and even if notifying the parents would not only not place the minor in emotional or physical danger, but may in fact be in her best interest. While the ramifications of such a law and the results of the Court's decision here may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the Legislature.
When Gonzales took his latest job, conservative lawyers in Washington were wary, even suspicious. Partly this was because he was not part of their inbred world. But Gonzales also had more of a reputation as a Bush loyalist than as a conservative. During his short time on the bench, he was considered a relative moderate — relative, that is, to Texas legal politics — and some of his votes deeply angered pro-lifers.Finally, the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council have no problem with his nomination.But Gonzales has moved quickly and effectively to allay conservatives' concerns. First, he staffed his office with highly regarded conservatives, including former clerks to Clarence Thomas and former aides to Kenneth Starr. He picked Timothy Flanagan, a conservative and Justice Department veteran, as his deputy.
The anything goes bunch are worrisome. Their 'single issue' mantra of lies is laughable considering that some people are concerned about the amnesty issue, + the affirmative action or racial preferences issues + concern over Gonzales 50-50 abortion record. That's at least 3 issues.
Can anyone find a statement made by Alberto Gonzales about his postion on abortion? I'm a little leary of someone that doesn't seem to take a position on anything. It seems rather Kerryesque.
I also voted for Bush, but I don't suspend my right, as a free citizen and an adult, to criticize him when he's wrong - - - and I don't view him (or anyone else walking the planet) as incapable of error.
"In regard to parental consent, TWO lower court rulings stated a girl in question did not meet the conditions for a judicial bypass. Yet, Alberto Souter and friends overturned those court decisions and intrepreted and reduced judicial bypass to the lowest possible standard."
You are absolutely right!
I read the Court's Opinion, the concurring, and the dissenting...and I have to agree that Gonzales & Co. misinterpreted the INTENTION of the law.
Just read the many comments of the legislators while they were still writing the law. They wanted a very strict bypass. But the Court definitely damaged the law and reduced it to a very low standard.
For THIS reason there is the outcry. It is a valid reason.
(Otherwise Gonzales seems like he would be strong against terrorists-- hopefully.)
See my #125...in his opinion on that case, he stated that the law troubled him as a parent, but that he had to rule strictly based on the law passed by the Legislature.
I am a prolife Texan and a regular defender of preborn children. However, you are fighting the wrong battle at the wrong time on this. Gonzalez is a fine conservative. He was outstanding on the TX Supreme Ct and he is a man of the people and culture of TX. He will bind up the wounds made by the previous AG (Ashcroft was a man of integrity but he was also unnecessarily confrontational). We don't need to shoot our own.
I have found that praying daily for the elected & appointed officials give me a great deal of peace. Trusting God means for me allowing HIM to work out how this appointment fits into HIS plan. That goes for Sen. Specter too.
His affirmative action - racial preferences position, and undecutting Ted Olsen, I find troublesome.
Exactly. The AG in 1973 did not foment Roe v. Wade, and the one who's confirmed in 2004 will not be able to negate it.
A better use of time and energy is to keep the pressure on Arlen Specter, either to keep him from chairing Senate Judiciary, or failing that, to convince him to behave himself when grilling future nominees.
The lstter is already working, as Specter publicly backpedals on earlier statements. I credit National Review Online for much of this.
Who died and made you Pope and Chief Justice?
Why do you assume that the people through their legislature are more apt to write insufferable and unconstitutional laws than activist judges who have nothing better to do than overturn the laws passed by the people's representatives?
And how would you know you have the right bead on what is and is not constitutional?
You seem to be confusing a refusal to criminalize a moral wrong (abortion) with a positive action to destrain a person from acting or enjoying a thing (penal/capital punishment and seizures).
Under the consitution, the state can refuse to punish an immoral act, such as prostitution. I wouldn't view such liberty as a good law, but the effect of a refusal to punishment is decriminalization. On the other hand, the constitution gives no authority for the state to force a woman into prostitution, which would be a deprivation without due process.
The state can prevent an action by criminalizing or allow an action by decriminalizing. It can only coerce an action through punishment, which is why we demand due process in such cases.
The problem with Roe vs. Wade is that it forcibly decriminalized a morally abhorent action in all cases that the people had outlawed.
Perhaps you should look at it in another way. Most states allow you to use deadly force against an intruder in your home. Some, however, out of a misidentified sympathy for crimnials, crimnialize self-defense. Allowing self-defense is not really different in consequence or law than allowing abortion. The effect is the termination of a human life withot a trial or action of the law by an extra-governmental agent.
What makes the difference is that most people view self-defense as a normal legal right, while most people view abortion as a sin.
Lets not confuse the powers of the state with the needs of the law.
This is fun, isn't it?
Last I checked, it was not the state forcing women to have abortions, but women choosing to do so themselves. The 5th and 14th Amendments concern people being deprived of life, liberty, or property by the state without due process. They don't outlaw murder, kidnapping, or theft. Those topics are covered under common law and state penal codes.
But by your interpretation of the constitution, I am violating the constitution every day by destraining my children from enjoying the fullness of their liberty, said subject also being covered by the same due process clause. The same tenuous link of the state allowing me to do that is there.
Perhaps it is time to go back and read up what Judge Bork said about this issue of substantive due process. I might note that it was the conservative jurists of the 1870-1930 period who laid the groundwork for these later false substantive due process decisions on "privacy" and "abortion" that tilt liberal.
You know, I respect your posts and have read quite a few of them.
But I think you're missing the point I'm making. ;-)
I don't give my "right" to think or to decide to anyone.
But the man has won and I am glad!
And think what you will......I do trust the man. If I didn't, I'd be miserable! And when I say "trust", I'm using that loosely.
You probably know that.
I made the decision to vote for this man to represent me! That's all! And I think he's doing that very well!
He makes the very first appointment and whamo!
It just goes to show you...."you can't please ALL the people ALL the time".
You are correct...but Attorney Generals are often the government's chief advocates when arguing a position for the government. I'm not saying this AG would do this, but we have seen this with regards to things like Affirmative Action...and more specifically, with Ike's AG (Herbert Brownell) who argued the case for the Federal Government with regards to Civil Rights...something liberals often forget. While an AG can't make law, s/he can be the governments main advocate for it.
Frankly, in party politics, I'd rather have a loyalist than a purist always questioning my motives and actions. Conservatives are if anything utterly disloyal in Republicans whenever they don't get what they want, and seem to have no recognition of the sausage making of politics at work.
Conservatives who don't like what the administration does should go and work to get their own man elected instead.
Sniping at Bush over nonsense like this is just aiding and abetting the anti-Christ conspiracy known as the Democrat Party.
Oh, give me a break.
I'm sure I can find even more cites for you of his making perfectly clear from the get-go what WAS and WAS NOT on the agenda of the Administration whose FIRST order of business was doubling the budget of the NIH and legitimizing with "do as I say, not as I do" state funding the Human Farming without which there is no such thing as ESCR.
For now, this one will have to do.
On Wednesday, however, under extreme pressure (sic), Ashcroft said that he would not attempt to overturn Roe v.Wade and that he considered it the “settled law of the land.” Further, he said that he does not believe that George W. Bush intends to challenge Roe.
Republican National Coalition for Life
Try again, sucker.
I agree.
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.