Posted on 01/18/2005 4:06:39 PM PST by TBP
Where's Christian/Conservative Outrage Over Gonzales' Support For Godless, Lawless Pro-Abortion Court Rulings?
Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,
The headline on a recent Joe Klein column in “Time” magazine (1/17/05) was “Where’s The Outrage?” He was writing about the Senate confirmation hearing of Judge Alberto Gonzales, President Bush’s choice to be the next Attorney General.
Mr. Klein’s point was that there should have been outrage --- but wasn’t --- because Judge Gonzales “was complicit, at the very least, in the Bush Administration’s decision to use severe physical interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.” He complains that there was “nothing, not even a burp of public outrage.”
Well, I, too, have been wondering about where the outrage has been concerning Judge Gonzales’ conformation hearing. But, I’ve been thinking about a different subject --- abortion. I’ve been thinking, specifically, about the following exchange between Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Judge Gonzales:
Sen. Durbin: The last question is a brief one, and it may have been touched on earlier. But when Senator Ashcroft in your position aspired to this Cabinet-level appointment, he was asked about Roe versus Wade, which he disagreed with on a political basis, and his argument was he would enforce, in his words, "settled law," and Roe versus Wade was "settled law" in America. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but could you articulate in a few words your position about the enforcement of Roe versus Wade or any other court decision that you personally or politically disagree with?
Judge Gonzales: Thank you, Senator. Of course, the Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy in our Constitution, and in Roe the court held that that right of privacy includes a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. A little over a decade ago, the court, in Casey, had an opportunity to revisit that issue. They made a -- they declined to overturn Roe, and of course made a new standard that any restriction that constituted an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose could not be sustained. My judgment is that the court has had an opportunity -- ample opportunities -- to look at this issue. It has declined to do so. And as far as I'm concerned, it is the law of the land and I will enforce it.
OK. So, where’s the outrage to this response by Judge Gonzales from the supposedly pro-life Christians and conservatives who worked enthusiastically for Mr. Bush’s re-election and voted for him? Where’s the outrage at Judge Gonzales’ refusal to say anything critical of the Roe v. Wade decision which is, arguably, the most appalling, un-Constitutional example of “judicial activism” in Supreme Court history --- a decision which simply invented a “right to privacy” which has resulted in the killing/murder of more than 40 million innocent unborn babies?
Before Judge Gonzales’ confirmation hearing, he was supported for Attorney General by, among others, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for Pat Robertson’s “American Center For Law And Justice;” Tom Minnery, head of Public Policy at “Focus On The Family:” and Gary Bauer, president of “American Values.”
I repeat: Where is the outrage to this response by Judge Gonzales from the supposedly pro-life Christian/conservative community? Mr. Sekulow? Mr. Minnery? Mr. Bauer? Anybody?
For God, Family, & the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka
This decision was unconstitutional and ecxceeded the authoriyt of the Court. Just like Dred Scott before it, it must be overturned. But Gonzalez is committed to upholding it.
Instead, we should be impeaching the judges and other officials who support it.
This is a legislative matter and it violates the most fundamental right of all -- the right to life, without which you can't enjoy any of the other rights of a free people.
Mike Peroutka is right on this. Where's the outrage?
Read my now long-standing tag line.
So we should be angry at an AG who says he'll enforce the law as it stands?
He echoes Ashcroft, who was confirmed. It seems to me that there should have been FOUR YEARS of outrage, not just recently.
Courts don't get to make law; legislators make law. Even Justice Blackmun, who wrote the Roe vs. Wade decision, admitted that there was no Constitunal justification for it. The Supreme Court is not the last word.
If Congress took away the Supremes' jurisdiction over this issue and passed a pro-life law, would Gonzalez defend it in court?
This is not true. In the famous "parental consent" decision, Gonzales followed Texas law. Supreme Court justices (state or federal) should interpret law, not make it.
It really doesn't matter what he thinks, it is what the law says and the fact that he will adibe by and enforce it as it is. If he wants to change laws, he could run for office, but he's not doing that.
Not the best pick, IMHO, but I think he will be fine.
I like your sig. If Bush wants to put a Hispanic on the Court, he should find Miguel Estrada, a vioctim of liberal bigotry.
You and I know that if Estrada's name were Michael Street, he'd be on the Federal bench today.
He'd be a far better choice than Al (Pro-Abort) Gonzalez.
'If Congress took away the Supremes' jurisdiction over this issue and passed a pro-life law, would Gonzalez defend it in court?'
He would prosecute whatever is illegal in America.
Abortion is legal in America. Don't damn the man for breaking the news to you.
As I recall, Ashcroft said precisely the same thing. It isn't the Attorney General's job to interpret the law, but to enforce it. Until we get a Supreme Court which throws out Roe v. Wade as being constitutionally flawed (it's only a matter of time), anyone in the AG's position is going to say the same thing.
My guess would be "yes."
Does that make you feel better?
I repeat: Where is the outrage to this response by Judge Gonzales from the supposedly pro-life Christian/conservative community? Mr. Sekulow? Mr. Minnery? Mr. Bauer? Anybody?
For God, Family, & the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka
Yes, absolutely. Killing unborn babies is a unconscionable act. The AG should not enforce any laws which allow for pre-meditated muder of innocent members of society. We need an Attorney General, who goes before the Senate and says he will not enforce any unjust laws.
He's a coward.
Of course he would. That's what he's saying, it's the AG's job to enforce the law as it is, not as he would like it to be.
He never said he thought Roe was correctly decided legally or that he supported abortion as a political matter. His position was compared to Ashcroft's, who opposes abortion but enforced the law while he was AG.
The sky is falling AGAIN?
Mike Peroutka's only agitating for something Gonzales said, and any AG should say about ANY law: as far as I'm concerned, it is the law of the land and I will enforce it.
What would Mike "Mr. Constitution" Peroutka have said? "F Roe and the Supreme Court! When I'm running Justice, I'll let people shoot up abortion clinics and kill abortionists!" Yeah, that'd get Gonzales confirmed. And the only way he gets closer to the SupCt is to get confirmed, and the only way he gets confirmed is to play the 'abortion is the law of the land' game.
Small wonder the closest Peroutka's been to the Oval Office is the White House tour.
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.