Gonzales Wrong for Attorney General; Why Won't Bush pick a Pro-Life Nominee? American Life League.

You're kidding, right? When did you become a cavilling lawyer?

No. The same interpretation of the constitution that says abortion is an unjust allowance of a deprivation of human life without due process would necessarily also apply to perceived self-defense, because individual citizens are not judge, jury, and executioner.

The law is not morality. Don't confuse the two. It doesn't mean morality should not shape the law, but the law is not morality.

I hope you're miserable at Bush's re-election too. You've done nothing but bitch and bellyache about him for four years.

Thanks for this post. I had a sad feeling that the pro-life establishment, bought and paid for by the GOP, would even stoop to defending and applauding Gonzales. At times I even thought it would be impossible for even them, but never discount the beltway harlots. There is no original-intent defense for what he did in Texas. The major people who were invloved in creating the Texas parental notice law have condemed him for his decision. It was in the courts perview to apply the judicial bypass, and he chose to turn it into a tunnel that you could fit a mac-truck through. You cant say he was "just following orders," or "interpriting the law". Even if the judical bypass provision was clear in favor of the abortion, NATRUAL LAW prohibits any government, any official or jurist tasked with enforcing and protecting the common good from taking the life of another, or allowing a murder to happen under cover of law. That is NOT judicial activism, its self-evident Natural Law, embraced by our founders. I wonder if the state of Texas and the US Congress were to repeal the 13th amendment and allow for slavery again, if many of these leaders would claim that a judge who would then sends a person back into slavery was just "following orders/the law" and upholding the slaveowners right to choose. If Bush appointed him, Im sure they would, so I dont even want to think about it further.

Gonzales, or anyone else who allows or favors any abortion under cover of law, has no place in government or on any court, even if he is "only" in charge of the Justice Department, which upholds the legal common good. People are policy.

Background info:

http://www.rnclife.org/reports/2000/mar00/mar00.html

http://www.rnclife.org/reports/2002/Oct02/oct02.shtml

From Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion

Nathan Schlueter:

The common law basis of our system embodied in the principle of stare decisis and the just requirements of consistency in applying the law demand a respect for precedent. To this objection I offer two replies. First, there was a federal court precedent for the unborn person reading of Fourteenth Amendment before Roe v. Wade, though this fact was virtually ignored by Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe Court.

In Steinberg v. Brown (1970) a three-judge federal district court upheld an anti-abortion statute, stating that privacy rights "must inevitably fall in conflict with express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

After relating the biological facts of fetal development, the court stated that "those decisions which strike down state abortion statutes by equating contraception and abortion pay no attention to the facts of biology."

"Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it."

Yet in commenting on the unborn person argument in Roe, Justice Blackmun wrote that "the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." He did so despite the fact that he had cited the case just five paragraphs earlier!

The failure of both appellees and the Court to treat this case is both unfortunate and inexplicable. Second, while our system is based upon a reasonable and healthy respect for precedent, this has never prevented the Court from revisiting and modifying precedent when the erroneous foundation and unjust results of that precedent become manifest. Such is the case with respect to abortion and the Fourteenth Amendment.

From Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion

Robert Bork:

Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that. Roe should be overruled and the issue of abortion returned to the moral sense and the democratic choice of the American people. Abortions are killings by private persons. Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception. Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion.

_________________________________________________________

Abortionists commit first degree murder.

From the law dictionary:
n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, or involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder, are established by statute in each state and by the U.S. Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter, which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.

Abortionists clearly act with malice aforethought.

From the law dictionary:
n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

Does this qualify as "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others"? It is estimated that this murder method accounts for about 10+% per year or 140,000 per year on children from early 2nd trimester on. BTW, their hearts were beating at three weeks and they start sucking their thumbs at around 12 weeks.

Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests For Life touring one of three former abortion rooms at the NATIONAL AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL in Baton Rouge, LA. It was open from 1986 – 1994. 30,000 children were aborted there. This was not the only abortion mill in the city. The “doctor” had this building built special to maximize his time and PROFITS.

Notice the kitchen sink with the garbage disposal. There were three ways for the “doctor” to dispose of the babies, an expensive biomedical incinerator, expensive biomedical waste pick-up (charge by pound) or a rather inexpensive garbage disposal. Every day God’s precious children were ground up in that disposal and flushed into the city’s sewer system. Thing is this doctor of death did late term abortions, so an assisting demon had to literally cut up the bigger kids to feed down the disposal.

I have given tours of the place a few times. It is like walking in a nightmare. The suction machine in one room is still plugged in and it works when you turn it on for the visitors to see and hear. This place is much like an abandoned Nazi death camp. It’s the only Memorial like it in the country. It’s a testament to America’s (and humanity's) darkest potential.

Some time after the mill was closed down, the doctor of death aborted himself with a bullet through the head.

I worked hard to help President Bush get re-elected. I don't know yet if this Gonzales matter is a major problem. I'm one of the "Value Voters" and I will not stand idly by if I think Bush might be working against ending the holocaust of abortion. And that's what it is--every damn bloody day--another HOLOCAUST.

I felt the same way at first. But I've heard lots of folks saying this is Gonzales' bone for not being nominated to SCOTUS. He could have done a lot more damage there.

Going to ignore the questions, huh?

Sorry but, no I'm not miserable about his re-election, just not ignorantly joyous as many are.

Bump!

Thanks. Please see 184.

see 27

I am all in favor of using the power of the law to end abortion. Were I a mayor, for example, I would use the local Dept. of Licenses and Inspections to shutdown and bulldoze every abortion clinic in the city limits as a menace to human health and the safety of the residents of the city. I would order local abortionists arrested for murder charges and thrown them in jail without bail. I would work for zoning changes to forbid abortion clinics within the city limits.

But I am not in favor of further misinterpreting the constitution.

The fact is, pro-lifers are far too focused on bad solutions to the abortion problem like judicial activism, and totally remiss in using the powers they have at hand to address the problem.

There is also a political consideration. The highest abortion rates are in CA, NY, NJ, DC, MA, RI, CT, MD, IL, WA, OR, etc. If abortion were back to being a state issue, the liberals could go happily on murdering themselves and throttling their future, while conservatives could forbid abortion in our part of the country. While I am morally opposed to abortion, even for liberals, I support liberal political and demographic suicide. Its fairly certain that even criminalizing abortion is not gonig to do anything to end it in those states listed above.

See, other unnamed conservatives are saying the opposite. At this point, it is vapor stream whispers. I think we should keep focus on Specter. Hammering him down should send a message.

One more time, please: There is an event that is an absolute prerequisite to being considered a "person" in common law. The plaintiffs in Roe v. Wade pointed to this extensively in their argument. If you do not know what this event is, then just say so, and I will enlighten you.

I wonder if the state of Texas and the US Congress were to repeal the 13th amendment and allow for slavery again, if many of these leaders would claim that a judge who would then sends a person back into slavery was just "following orders/the law" and upholding the slaveowners right to choose.

Exactly.

BUMP! Thanks for that link.

It was soley left up to the courts to determine the standard for a judicial bypass and Gonzalez and friends went out of their way to set a low standard to obtain one.

A 6-3 decision.... Since you seem to know so much about the ruling and the requirements within the Parental Notification Act could you explain to me and the rest of the readers on this thread where the following from the Opinion is not correct and your statement cited above is? In other words back up your words with proof to discount what the opinion said. Do you have the enumeration in the act that supports your claims? Or are you just blowing smoke and spreading lies?

From the Opinion .....

B. The Statutory Proof Standard
In creating the bypass procedure, the Legislature delegated no authority to the courts to determine the grounds upon which to grant a bypass. Rather, it specifically enumerated the grounds that, if shown, require the courts to grant a parental notification waiver. Neither did the Legislature give courts authority to decide the level of proof a minor must show to prove that she is entitled to a bypass. And although the Legislature could have chosen to impose a higher standard of proof, such as by requiring the minor to establish the statutory requisites by "clear and convincing" proof or proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," it did not do so. Instead, it set the level of proof at the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard.⁽³⁾

I am all in favor of using the power of the law to end abortion...

Agreed.

But I am not in favor of further misinterpreting the constitution.

How? Laws that are intrinsically evil are null by virtue of the natural law.

The fact is, pro-lifers are far too focused on bad solutions to the abortion problem like judicial activism, and totally remiss in using the powers they have at hand to address the problem.

That may be, but it doesn't change the nature of Gonzalez' ruling.

There is also a political consideration. The highest abortion rates are in CA, NY, NJ, DC, MA, RI, CT, MD, IL, WA, OR, etc. If abortion were back to being a state issue, the liberals could go happily on murdering themselves and throttling their future, while conservatives could forbid abortion in our part of the country. While I am morally opposed to abortion, even for liberals, I support liberal political and demographic suicide.

Wuh? The babies of liberals are God's children!

Its fairly certain that even criminalizing abortion is not gonig to do anything to end it in those states listed above.

Again, that may be, but it still does not excuse Gonzalez' ruling.

Bet you don't get any answers to your questions.

Unborn children are not citizens.

Of course they are. Are they stateless?

This is even recognized in the Preamble with the usage of the term, "posterity."

Prostitution is not a victimless crime. The prostitue is a victim, as is the neighborhood where the trade is plied.

I know. That's why I used "scare quotes."

LOL I didn't have to read far to see that I was right! :)

Obviously, two lower courts disagreed with the Texas Supreme Court on how determine what constituted a judicial bypass. So, the courts ended up deciding the standard, as often happens.

Gonzalez and friends overturned the lower courts intrepretation of judicial bypass and opposed a lower standard than the lower courts.