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

usnewswire.com/ ^

[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-

[Luis Gonzalez]

So tell me why an individual such as Alberto Gonzales, who renders Judgment from the bench solely based on the letter of the law as it is written is a bad choice for AG.

[Luis Gonzalez]

There are four separate cases here, which one are you quoting?

I addressed the one quoted in the post I was responding to.

[deport]

Jane Doe 5.... which is the actual opinion written and signed onto by the 6 Justices.......

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/000224o.htm

[Luis Gonzalez]

"To construe [the act] so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the state, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

A Conservative's dream Judge.

[Dec31,1999]

Now that the election is over, I feel sure that the President and the Republican party is going to give us pro-lifers the screwing of our lives. Just as they have done in the past with CFR, Monicagate, and immigration.

Sorry to be so blunt, but just watch what they do, no what they say.

[Dec31,1999]

So tell me why an individual such as Alberto Gonzales, who renders Judgment from the bench solely based on the letter of the law as it is written is a bad choice for AG.

I have no idea. Teach us, please.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, this is what the article posted said:

"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."

So, another lie.

Don't you have a problem with people who lie or misrepresent facts to gain a favorable opinion for their opinion?

[Luis Gonzalez]

You seem to think that he is not a good choice, what do you base your opinion on?

[deport]

Luis to make it easier here is the opinion and the concurring and dissenting opinions for Jane Doe 5......

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

[Luis Gonzalez]

You seem to think that a "screwing" is not appointing activist Judges of your liking.

[Henchman]

A WH blitz! YES! Bush has been doing the political thing, will try to enhance the "moderate" base (moderate abortionists produce the same results as Liberal abortionists - death). If we are betrayed, we need to let Bush know, in 2006 his majority in the House and Senate are in jeopardy.

No, I cannot vote for a Democrat, but I do vote in primaries. If Bush backs someone, I won't. If bush's candidate is the party nominee, I won't vote for that person. If there is a Pro Life third party, I vote that way. If Bush does the right thing NOW, we don't have a need to retaliate later.

[Antoninus]

If we don't make serious progress on Pro-Life issues over the next 4 years, the Republicans are toast in 2008.

Fair warning...

[Luis Gonzalez]

The opinion makes perfect sense to me.

"This Court must interpret the statute as it is written; we are not free to ignore the judicial bypass language. The statute allows a minor to avoid notifying a parent if she can show that: (1) she is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to obtain an abortion without notifying a parent; (2) notifying a parent would not be in her best interest; or (3) notifying a parent may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor. See id. § 33.003(i). Concerning the first ground, the Legislature could have required that the minor be fully informed, rather than sufficiently well informed. The Legislature had before it -- but rejected -- at least one bill that would have required physicians to supply specified, detailed information about abortion procedures and alternatives to all women, including minors, in order to obtain their informed consent. See Tex. S.B. 65, 76th Leg., R.S. (1999). But the Legislature opted in the Parental Notification Act to impose only the more general requirement that a minor be "sufficiently well informed." (5) Moreover, to meet the third exception, the Legislature could have required the minor to show that notifying the parents would lead, or even would likely lead to abuse of the minor rather than the lower standard the Legislature chose -- that notification may lead to abuse. We do not mean to imply that all these more stringent standards would ultimately pass constitutional muster, but only point out that the Legislature made clear and deliberate choices about the statutory wording."

[Luis Gonzalez]

You'll make so much more progress with Hillary in power.

[Robert Drobot]

.....separating the wheat from the chaff.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? -- Matthew 7:16

[deport]

You remember Justice Owens don't you? Here's a little more from the opinion and one wonders about Judicial Activism.....

In her dissent, Justice Owen argues that "well-established common-law principles regarding appellate review" require us to recognize an implied finding that Doe is not mature as though this were an omitted element of Doe's claim. This purported "common-law" principle, and most of the cases cited to support it, are based upon Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 299, which provides that, when one or more elements of a claim or defense have been found, "omitted unrequested elements, when supported by evidence, will be supplied by presumption in support of the judgment." Tex. R. Civ. P. 299. Thus, the argument goes, if there is some evidence supporting the trial court's failure to find that the minor is mature, the judgment must be affirmed.

Justice Owen acknowledges that Rule 299 conflicts with section 33.003 and does not apply............

[TAdams8591]

The term I favor is SILENT HOLOCAUST, because the victims cannot even scream.

And it does remind one of a Nazi death camp. The parallels are obvious.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Although I dont agree that cases of self-defense are ever categorized as murder. There is a moral "double effect" there. When you resort to self defense and the attacker gets killed, your intent was not to kill him, it was to defend yourself. Morally and legally, that is not murder.

I don't disagree there. I was referring to cases where innocent people who bumble into the wrong place get shot by someone who thinks they are a dangerous intruder. That is a form of murder, since you are using deadly force without certain knowledge of what you are up against.

[JeffAtlanta]

Yeah, I can see where an election that turned on moral values proves that we shouldn;t fight for the unborn.

It didn't turn on moral values. Any subgroup could claim that their votes put Bush over the top.

[devolve]

The "I want everything yesterday" crowd is here.


Recall those who demanded #2 in California because if he lost as Republicans have done for a good while in CA "It will allow the left to make things so bad that finally the public will revolt and turn Conservative and we will suddenly get our way!"

This applies to more than one issue........

Seems like that naive philosphy gave America a democratic liberal social agenda US Congress for many decades.


Republicans have gained the trust of voting Americans and won the Senate, House, and Presidency in a time of incredible peril from abroad and the same bunch is ready to toss it in the garbage heap if they do not get their way yesterday.

Like the left after 2000 and after Nov 2nd 2004 -


Everything is not one issue or agenda and things cannot be instantly done with 60 vote Senate problems, radical leftist federal judges, corrupt dem voting scams, a radical leftist media censoring and fabricating at will.


Of course the only reason many are not President like George W Bush or political gurus like Karl Rove is that they were held back and oppressed!


Whether we like it or not we must operate within the system and put in people that President Bush can fully trust and know well.


Or perhaps we should have let Pat Buchanan make another election winning convention speech again.



Some gain wisdom, some only gain gray hair.



They sound like those dems in Congress and the "investigate Ohio!" gang -


Do you know how many points the Baltimore Colts scored against Joe Namath and the Jets in the Super Bowl?


Who cares? The Colts lost!



The dems can now scream "We're #2 forever!"