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.
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
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.
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.