Posted on 11/28/2004 10:40:49 AM PST by hsmomx3
Washington, DC – The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., today welcomed President Bush’s nomination of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as Attorney General. If confirmed, Gonzales would be the first Hispanic ever to serve as Attorney General.
“We are very encouraged by the Gonzales nomination. We previously criticized the Bush Administration for not having an Hispanic in the cabinet since the departure of former HUD Secretary, now Senator-elect, Mel Martinez. We are pleased that one of the first acts since the President’s reelection both rectifies that situation and marks an historic milestone for the Latino community. Never before has an Hispanic served as head of one of the four major cabinet posts – Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, and Attorney General,” stated Janet Murguia, NCLR Executive Director and COO.
Murguia also noted Gonzales’ ties to the Hispanic community throughout his career. “Alberto Gonzales served with distinction on the board of directors of one of NCLR’s oldest and most respected affiliates, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans (AAMA) in Houston, Texas. Moreover, during his tenure as White House Counsel, he has been one of the most accessible members of the White House staff to NCLR and other Hispanic organizations,” added Murguia.
Murguia concluded, “We acknowledge that this is the first step of a long confirmation process that requires that his record be fully examined. That being said, Gonzales is a thoughtful, reasonable public servant, a man of his word, and we have every expectation that his nomination will be very well received in the Latino community.”
My impression is that he doesn't really have a philosophical basis for his rulings. He has a reputation (accurately IMHO) as a guy who always has his finger to the wind. In other words, I espect that four years from now, he will probably be voting like O'Connor or (worse!) Souter.
It must be a La Raza conspiracy. :-)
Thanks for the feedback!
Gonzales belonged to none of those groups.
He belonged to the NCLR which claims no associations with any of the groups you listed, nor do any of those groups claim any affiliation to the NCLR.
Now, you stated that the NCLR had a "stated goal" to do several things, and I linked you to their site so that you could show me those stated goals...are you going to get around to that sometime in the near future?
Do you have proof that he is pro-abortion?
Show me one simple statement by Alberto Gonzales that show his support for the pro-choice side of the issue.
You see the picture in post #12?
Alberto Gonzales and Priscilla Owen
By Robert S. Sargent, Jr.
web posted Janary 27, 2003
We know that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, when he
was on the Texas Supreme Court, was on one side of the issues
in a series of four abortion-related "Jane Doe" cases between
February and June 2000, and federal appellate nominee Priscilla
Owen was on the other. Pro-choice groups have tried to use this
to demonstrate that Justice Owen is anti-abortion while pro-lifers
have tried to use this to demonstrate that Justice Gonzales is too
liberal. What were the issues?
Jane Doe, a teenager, asked the courts to let her bypass the
Texas Parental Notification Law, and have an abortion without
telling her parents. The relevant part of the statute (33.003,
paragraph i) says: "The court shall determine by a
preponderance of the evidence whether the minor is mature and
sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an
abortion performed without notification to either of her parents
or a managing conservator or guardian, whether notification
would not be in the best interest of the minor, or whether
notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of
the minor. If the court finds that the minor is mature and
sufficiently well informed, that notification would not be in the
minor's best interest, or that notification may lead to physical,
sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor, the court shall enter an
order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of the
abortion without notification to either of her parents ...and shall
execute the required forms."
The lower court denied Jane Doe's application on the grounds
that she didn't qualify under statute 33.003 to bypass notification,
but the Texas Supreme Court with Justice Gonzales writing the
majority opinion, overturned the lower court. Justice Owen, who
wrote the dissent, wrote that her problem was "…from the
methods employed by the Court in rendering that judgment." She
said of the majority: "One of the many remarkable statements in
the Court's opinion attempting to justify its reversal and rendition
in this case is that because the trial court did not make a specific
finding that Doe had not shown maturity, the Court is
empowered to presume that Doe is mature…. The Court thus
overrules more than fifty years of precedent. Until today, it had
been well-settled law that when a trial court makes findings of
fact and conclusions of law, an appellate court must presume that
the evidence supports ‘not only the express findings, but also any
omitted findings which are necessary to support the judgment,'
unless the record does not support the judgment."
Justice Owen goes on to analyze Jane Doe's statements and how
they apply to the statute. The combination of the "methods of the
Court," and her application of the law makes her opinion
convincing.
Justice Gonzales, in his opinion, states: "…the duty of a judge is
to follow the law as written by the Legislature…. Legislative
intent is the polestar of statutory construction. Our role as judges
requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we
might like to see enacted, and instead do our best (my emphasis)
to discern what the Legislature actually intended." Justice
Gonzales, like Justice Owen, analyzed Jane Doe's statements
and how they applied to the law. I emphasized, "do our best"
because a re-reading of the statute shows that there can be all
kinds of interpretations of the law, and reading their opinions
convinced me that they both did their best to interpret the law.
I understand the Texas legislature is going to re-write the law to
be more specific about what words and phrases like "mature,"
"sufficiently well informed," what's in the "best interest of the
minor," and "emotional abuse," really mean. Until then, it's
understandable that there are differences of opinion between two
good judges, and like good judges, their personal views on
abortion are irrelevant.
I'm convinced that conservatives need to stop worrying that
Gonzales will be to son Bush what Souter was to dad Bush. Can
you imagine Souter saying and believing these words from
Alberto Gonzales: "We take the words of the statute as the
surest guide to legislative intent. Once we discern the
Legislature's intent we must put it into effect, even if we ourselves
might have made different policy choices."?
Both of these nominees will make fine judges.
Robert S. Sargent, Jr. can be reached at rssjr@citcom.net.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com
Bush is trying to be all-inclusive. Nothing wrong with that.
I think it may be his browser.... but it didn't show in mine for a while either. I'm not sure why as it does now.
That would certainly be unfortunate. But at least this nomination isn't for Supreme Court. Maybe AG is a safer place for this guy. Whatever happened to Estrada? Isn't he better ideologically? Maybe Bush would save him for the Supreme Court now.
You are an idiot and a troll, go take a look at post 64. And then site for me there I posted ANYTHING about NCLR and organization about which I know nothing. I said "La Raza" NOT NCLR, you asked what I meant and I posted info about La Raza, NOT NCLA. All of which you know as well as I, but since you are a complete and total waste of food you just have to lie and distort to get your jollies. Now I remember why I avoid posting to or responding to you. You are an insufferable fool.
good read thanks.
You jumped into the middle of a conversation between me and another poster discussing the NCLR, and the fact that it has nothing to do with anything called "La Raza" (a non-existant boogey man being thrown around by the less-tahn-informed around here), upon entry you proceeded to make the claim that this "La Raza" entity's "stated goal is the disintegration of the USA, leading to the creation of Azland or reuniting the sw USA with Mexico. La Raza by it's very name is a racist organization. La Raza is ever bit as bad, if not worst then the KKK, anyone that has ever had anything to do with such an orgainization is unfit for public service ever."
Now, slap my ass and call me Sally, but since you jumped into the middle of the conversation, it was incumbent upon YOU to understand what was being discussed...and you failed to do so, making YOU the idiot and the troll.
There you have it folks, another idiot who believes that Judges need to rule according to something other than the letter of the law.
"I'm convinced that conservatives need to stop worrying that Gonzales will be to son Bush what Souter was to dad Bush. Can you imagine Souter saying and believing these words from Alberto Gonzales: "We take the words of the statute as the surest guide to legislative intent. Once we discern the Legislature's intent we must put it into effect, even if we ourselves might have made different policy choices."? -- Robert S. Sargent, Jr.
Who knows? As I said before, there is no Michigan "statute" that mandated diversity, yet that didn't stop Gonzales from using it anyway.
An idiot? I'll let that pass....but I notice that you didn't address my point that your argument is contradictory because you praised SCOTUS decision which struck down the point system at UM yet yet praised the decision to allow it to impose diversity.
I "praised" something?
Shoe me.
Show me.
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.