Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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-


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: all; bush43; doj; gonzales; prolife; term2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 601-617 next last
To: Poohbah

Are you refering to the event/word born?

Anyway, come on -- enlighten me.


201 posted on 11/12/2004 11:56:17 AM PST by cpforlife.org (Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

Another great reason to dump Gonzales. He is Racial Prefrences on wheels.


202 posted on 11/12/2004 11:57:05 AM PST by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

Isn't that sort of what happened with Roe vs Wade?


203 posted on 11/12/2004 11:58:05 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: deport
The Texas Supreme Court, including Gonzalez, took it upon themselves to define what a judicial bypass was and did so in a way to make it easier for a minor to get an abortion:

On March 22, in a 6-3 decision, the Texas Supreme Court vacated a decision by an appellate court upholding a district court ruling that a 17 year-old girl is not mature enough to make an abortion decision without notifying her parents. The court said that the district court ruling occurred prior to the establishment by the Supreme Court of new guidelines that must be used to determine whether a minor can "bypass" parental notification. The majority ordered the lower court to reconsider its decision in light of the following new guidelines: 1) the girl's emotional or physical needs; 2) the possibility of emotional or physical danger to the minor; 3) the stability of her home and whether notification "would cause serious and lasting harm to the family structure;" and 4) the effect of notification on the girl's relationship with her parents.

204 posted on 11/12/2004 11:59:45 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Gonzalez and friends overturned the lower courts intrepretation of judicial bypass and opposed a lower standard than the lower courts.


Well did the lower and appellate courts raise bar..... that's what the opinion is basically stating.... So again I ask for the wording which supports your contention.... not the fact that the lower and appellate court got over turned. The 6-3 ruling said that the 17 year old met the requirements as enumerated in the PNA.... Did one over reach or the did one lower the bar?
205 posted on 11/12/2004 12:01:44 PM PST by deport (I've done a lot things.... seen a lot of things..... Most of which I don't remember.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

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

The Constitution is not an enactment of natural law, but a framework for the basic workings of the federal government and an overall restriction on its freedom of action. The 5th and 14th Amendments prohibit the states from certain actions. They do not force certain laws. Misuing the constitution is how this all began.

If you want to outlaw abortion, get the legislatures to do it.

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

Just recognizing reality. We can mourn for the children's destruction, even while rejoicing in the political consequences for those who perform the misdeed. I'm not going to cry about liberals artificially limiting their rates of reproduction. I'll save my tears for the children.

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

Had Gonzales ruled as you wanted, it would simply have been smacked down by the USSC. Isn't that clear by now? We need judges who will allow the laws of the legislatures to be left in force, not judges who make up law from the bench. I don't want to live in a judicial tyranny.

206 posted on 11/12/2004 12:03:06 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I respectfully disagree. I dont see a person with a record that tolerates abortion under cover of law to be one who would enforce the laws saving the unborn. On top of that, the very message it sends to the nation and the world having our "top cop" a person who has such a horrible record. The New York Times praised him the other day for his rulling in Texas regarding parental noticiation. I see your point, but I just dont think anyone in any position of authority taked with upholding the common good should be pro-abortion or think that law in a republic can ever tolerate abortion.


207 posted on 11/12/2004 12:05:07 PM PST by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Question: Gonzales Wrong for Attorney General; Why Won't Bush pick a Pro-Life Nominee?

Answer: Political cronyism is thicker than spiritual moralism.

You know there is a a very high price awaiting all who had a hand in making this Biblically defiant appointment.

208 posted on 11/12/2004 12:06:44 PM PST by Robert Drobot (God, family, country. All else is meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

You finally got it.

One has to be born in order to be a person in the eyes of common law.

This, in turn, means that 5th and 14th Amendment arguments are worthless for stopping abortion, as the underlying common law doesn't support the use of the 5th and 14th Amendments for that purpose.

Instead, you're going to have to get that put into statutory law.

Gonzales can be relied on to not argue that statutory law doesn't mean what it says, or that "penumbras and emanations" of various portions of the Constitution actually exist.

Note this: when your organization finds itself arguing on the same side as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW against Gonzalez, you're raising questions as to the sincerity of your pro-life stance...


209 posted on 11/12/2004 12:07:11 PM PST by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Thanks again for this reply/post. Indeed, we aleady have the 14th and 5th amendments, so a judge would not need to invoke Natural law. God Bless Father Frank Pavone also.


210 posted on 11/12/2004 12:08:02 PM PST by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

Comment #211 Removed by Moderator

To: Ol' Sparky

Of course, allowing the 17 year old girl to kill a child under cover of law conflicts with the 14th amemdment, which demands equal protection under the law for all "persons" is each state (including Texas). An unborn child is indeed a "person."


212 posted on 11/12/2004 12:11:50 PM PST by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; Poohbah
Of course they are. Are they stateless?

Legally? Yes.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (Amendment 14, Section 1)

If they were citizens under common law, their parents would enjoy certain rights with respect to them. Tax deductions being a large consideration. They would also need to be enumerated in the Census.

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

This refers to all persons not yet born, not just those already conceived. Don't grasp at straws.

213 posted on 11/12/2004 12:12:30 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Bump back!


214 posted on 11/12/2004 12:13:15 PM PST by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Isn't that sort of what happened with Roe vs Wade?

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Do you see anything there about striking down state laws or clauses of state constitutions?

215 posted on 11/12/2004 12:14:32 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot
You got that right.

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/

216 posted on 11/12/2004 12:15:59 PM PST by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: GregGinn

I agree with you that they wont appoint anyone who will even come close to overturning Roe, for the very same reasons that you described. A string of appointments that overturns Roe, say, 4-7 years after they were apponted is viewed as a PR/political nightmare for the GOP and future Bush family members that have their eye on the dynasty. I part company with you that we should not seek justice in this world, as imperfect as it is. What is the point of gaining the whole world if we loose our own souls? What will God say to us in the next life?


217 posted on 11/12/2004 12:19:44 PM PST by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Scholastic; Poohbah; Ol' Sparky
Of course, allowing the 17 year old girl to kill a child under cover of law conflicts with the 14th amemdment, which demands equal protection under the law for all "persons" is each state (including Texas). An unborn child is indeed a "person."

Have you ever actually read the 14th Amendment? It specifically excludes the unborn as citizens or persons to whom the protections of the constitution apply.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The unborn are outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution. They have no more rights under the Constitution than a citizen of a foreign country does. Positive law may include protections for them, but that Constitution is otherwise silent on the matter.

218 posted on 11/12/2004 12:20:53 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Scholastic

"What is the point of gaining the whole world if we loose our own souls? What will God say to us in the next life?"

You are not on the guest list?


219 posted on 11/12/2004 12:20:54 PM PST by radicalamericannationalist (The Senate is our new goal: 60 in '06.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Pray tell, where does the Constitution say that the unborn are not under its jurisdiction? Or is this just an emanation of a penumbra?
220 posted on 11/12/2004 12:22:07 PM PST by radicalamericannationalist (The Senate is our new goal: 60 in '06.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 601-617 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson