[tame]

Techinally, it's still legal. Hopefully that changes soon. So our beef is Gonzalez doesn't make up the law as he goes along like the Florida Supreme Court in 2000; or the Roe v. Wade court; or the Massachusetts Supreme Court of 2004; or the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

no, technically it is NOT legal as per the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution, the SCOTUS decisions notwithstanding.

My reasoning is similar to Lincoln's reasoning when he, in essence, told Chief Justice Taney and the SCOTUS that THEY were acting illegally when they ruled that slaves were "inferior Beings", and "property".

Lincoln basically said to the SCOTUS, "you're wrong, and we're not obligated to follow your decision.

And Abe didn't even have the amendments we have NOW.

Gonzalez was not only justified in ruling otherwise than he did in Texas, he had a responsibility to.

The SCOTUS is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of Government, NOT the infallible rule. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to protecting innocent human beings.

[NeoCaveman]

no, technically it is NOT legal as per the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution, the SCOTUS decisions notwithstanding.

Well until the Supremes rule that way, we are stuck.

These pro-lifer vs. pro-lifer circular firing squads are counter productive.

Especailly when it means some on our side make common cause with the NOW nags in opposing Gonzalez.

[shield]

Will President Bush send Gonzales as a nominee when an opening in the US Supreme Court happens? Knowing their relationship....I'd say YES!!!

[Shryke]

Gonzalez was not only justified in ruling otherwise than he did in Texas, he had a responsibility to.

It appears that you feel that the justices, when it comes to an issue such as this, should vote morally. Is this correct?