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-
What are you talking about?
Alberto softned up the Solicitor Generals Arguments and thats why we lost. ALberto supports AA and wanted it to stay. So ALberto used his PERSONAL VIEWS to interfer in a case.
=== By the way what is 100 times 0?
I'll be darned ... it's EXACTLY the number of "strict Constitionalists" in the Senate who opposed imposition of a National ID, per the amendment of "McKeating" to his and Lieberman's bill.
=)
And therefore his attorney won and afterall you think that is the most important thing. A win in the courtroom.
Do you want an attorney that will lose against the DNC in courtrooms?
Personal views?
I want you to show me where the Constitution grants the power to dictate admission policies to State Universities.
To the Feds.
Regarding your last question I would have to say that when Gonzales makes a pro DNC stance on issues such as being pro affirmative action - then with an AG like him who needs enemies :-)
You would think that the welfare state would have been prohibited in the first place by the takings clause in the 5th Amendment, and the 13th Amendment preventing involuntary servitude, but alas, no Justice has had the balls or the ovaries to say what the Constitution says there, vis a vis the welfare state.
Who says the right to life supersedes the right to be secure in one's person?
Does the right to life supersede the right to bear arms? I thought all rights in the Bill of Rights were of equal value.
Property rights don't supersede free speech. But the rights of the independent supersede the rights of the dependent. This is the basis for many laws allowing the control of minors by their parents.
Your obnoxious guest can speak in the street. If he needs your house to speak, then he is in a state of dependency. This makes his rights inferior to yours, until his independency is restored, by placing him in the street.
Whoever is dependent, must yield. That is what conservatives say about welfare recipients.
If they accept Federal Funds!
So now, you're in the bizarre position of having to defend Federal funding of State schools in order to criticize Gonzales as a good choice for AG.
Judges rule according to the strict, self-evident wording of the law...Gonzales did that in the Jane Doe cases, if you don't like his rulings, it's only because you don't like the law...but you won't see that.
You won't see it because you, as is the case with the majority of the people, believe that Judges are there to change laws...they are not. If there are bad laws set in place by the legislature, the way to change them is through the legislature. Unless of course, the laws are unconstitutional. The constitutionality of a minor being able to obtain a judicial bypass in order to skip over the parental notification requirements of the Texas Parental Act has not been challenged, and as it stands, it's Texas law.
Some claim that Gonzales should have not given his approval in those cases, but no one has discussed what legal ground he would have stood on to withhold granting the judicial bypass.
What you want is judicial activism to suit your agenda, and no matter how you cut it, judicial activism is wrong.
Your only complaint about Alberto Gonzales is that as both a Judge and an attorney, he's followed the letter of the law.
As far as the U of M case, the school has a stated policy that makes it clear that not even the highest possible GPA or LSAT scores guarantees admission, Barbara Grutter sued because she claimed to have been denied admission in spite of her score as a result of U of M's policy of looking beyond the scores of the applicants to choose which students to accept into their law school.
In order for the Court to find in favor of petitioner, it would have had to establish that the University was doing something either unconstitutional, or illegal, in fact, the ability of the University to make its own judgments includes the selection of the student body; educational autonomy is rooted in the First Amendment.
Now, achieving racial balance for its own sake is patently unconstitutional, but that's not what U of M was doing, and the absence of a quota system proved that; U of M was looking for the educational benefits of a diverse student body. Whether they are right or wrong is not the question, but whether it is legal for them to seek achieving those benefits they believe can be gained from a diverse student body by considering factors beyond GPA and LSAT scores, was, and the Court found that U of M was breaking no laws, and violating no one's constitutional rights.
Thanks.
It's amazing how sometimes my brain still gets stuck in the wrong language in the heat of an argument.
If University of Michigan which is private is so committed to Affirmative Actions that they are willing to give up federal funds then let them keep their racist Affirmative Action. Then the States will have to place bans on AA such as California, and then let the schools give up and state and local funds too. If they are so committed to AA that they want to give up public funds then fine it is their choice.
"Positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group, often to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice. When numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population. For example, a medical school with an affirmative action program would seek to admit members of an underrepresented group in proportion to their representation in the population of those who had completed pre-medical requirements and wished to attend medical school. Affirmative action should be distinguished from reparations."
The reason that U of M won the case is because it wasn't affirmative action at all. There were no numerical quotas, and their purpose of the diversity being sought was not "to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice", but rather to enhance the collegiate ambiance.
It simply was not what you wanted it to be.
Yep. Ironically, all this whining is not doing the pro-life cause any good. I'm a pro life person and I am sick of hearing of this. He's an attorney general for goodness sake, not a Supreme Court justice.
The Uof M, affirmative action policy was to reward students a set of points to get in. If you were a minority you recieved 20 points, while if your white you receive no points. A good essay is only 10 points. So are you saying minorities just because the color of their skin should get 20 points more that white students?
Enhance the experience such BS. What does race have to do with that. What about diversity of ideas. Nope just more group think liberal mumbo jumbo, that you try to pass off as conservative. Look I think Gonzlas was picked because of the good ol boy system and him being hispanic was just icing on the cake for Bush. So, you can argue and I can argue back and forth and not agree. 17 does not equal mature (this defintion was left up to the courts in a poorly written piece of legislation that encouraged the courts to interpret it) and Gonzales is pro Affirmative Action. Pro Affirmative Action combined with the border policy is bad IMHO. And first the AG then the Supreme Court.
The problem is that YOU don't run U of M, and what they did was perfectly legal. I'm not trying to pass anything off as conservative.
Now you claim that there was pandering involved in picking Gonzales...make the case for his not being qualified.
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.