Posted on 11/14/2004 12:23:25 PM PST by sugarbabe
Al Gonzales' sister was in my Sunday School class this morning, and we discussed at length his pro life views. She reassured me that he is pro life. She said it was very hurtful to hear people saying that he is not, and that he was following the law when he ruled on the parental notification law. She said our beef is with the legislature and how the law was written. She emphasized several times that Al is pro life.
Could we find out if he's pro second-amendment?
His record will speak for him, not his sister.
Agreed. His record is what counts.
It makes no difference in the Attorney General position! He only enforces the law, not make them!
Why does it matter in the Attorney General is pro-life or not? The Attorney General enforces the law regardless of his personal opinions.
Gonzales believes so much in this concept that he went all out to oppose Ted Olsen and succesfully got the DOJ to write a report endorsing diversity after the SCOTU decided to uphold that concept in the University of Michigan case. Thomas, Scalia, Renquist, and Olsen were on the strict constructionist side, Gonzales opposed them.
Just askin'
Right, and he is associated with a lot of Latino civil rights group plus indigents rights group.
He is a moderate BUT one would think with his Civil rights affiliations he is RINO if not leaning more on the left lib side.
Yet many FReepers attack him for not being pro-life (they claim) & President Bush for appointing him.
I for one think this is interesting, and I am glad it was posted.
To those who say it is meaningless, that only his record matters, well, the post speaks to that point as well. The sister reportedly said Al Gonzalez was following what he believed the law required of him at the time, and she noted that the legislature was responsible for how the law was written.
So will you take that into account when you consider his "record", or would you demand that he should have rewritten the law from the Bench?
Surely there is a thread to bash Bush and Gonzalez on that covers your rude change of subject from abortion to affirmative action.
Wasn't Janet Reno the AG back under Clinton.
She choose to mis-direct funding to persecute pro-lifers rather than fight the growing threat of terrorism. I don't have time to find it but this has come to light in the last month or so.
Answer your question?
"So will you take that into account when you consider his "record", or would you demand that he should have rewritten the law from the Bench?"
---Sounds quite like Sandra Day O'Connor speaking when she talks about upholding Roe vs. Wade. Reversing judicial activism is not judicial activism. The problem is that Al Gonzales seem to be a pro-life libertarian, and a social progressive. We might as well let the Democrats nominate him, because they very well might (remember, Al Gonzales WAS -- WAS -- under consideration for a nomination to the SCOTUS when Clinton chose Ginsberg).
I think that AG is fine, but SCOTUS should not even come to Bush's mind; should those sentiments (Of SCOTUS) be uttered by anyone who is close to the White House, everyone from the bloggers to those who donate money should take as strong a stand as they have ever taken.
Attorney General is fine; we will all get to see his social progressiveness played out regularly. But Supreme Court? No. He seems like a slightly more liberal Sandra Day.
Harry Browne says he's pro-life, too. Just can't bring himself to support any action on the issue. That's not, in my opinion, truly pro-life. It's like saying you're anti-slavery but it's not your place to tell people not to own slaves or try to pass laws to outlaw slavery.
Anyhow, getting away from preaching on abortion, Gonzales' family is just going to have to accept that there are much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much better options available for Bush regarding the Supreme Court nominations than the good ol' boy and best buddy from Texas. We cannot afford another Souter or O'Connor.
It is not in my nature to assume someone is going to be criminally negligent in their job. I believe George W. Bush is a good man and he thinks Alberto Gonzales is a good man. I have no reason to believe he will neglect his obligation to his country and his President.
Ideally, for sure. But Reno had no problem supressing investigations and picking and choosing which cases to prioritize for allocating resources. Wonder how many boxloads of cases died under her stranglehold because of statute of limitations?
I respectfully disagree. A key issue that has been raised here is whether he believes in enforcing the law or making it by fiat. If he does it one area (namely diversity), why wouldn't he do it another? I presented an example. Do you have facts to refute it?
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.