Posted on 01/18/2005 4:06:39 PM PST by TBP
say what?
Roe Vs. Wade & Casey is considered established law. He could be consistent and both claiming that the court has already established these rulings as law. He could then go home to sleep knowing tha he was consistent... while somewere, someone does a late term abortion in the late evening....
I wonder how many people would support Gonzales for Attorney General if he stated that he would enforce slavery if it was the law of the land.
The sky is falling AGAIN?
BBbbwwaaahahahaaaa!
Now that has to be the most asinine thing I have read all day.
Gonzales is not a Feddie. In fact, if confirmed, he will be the first Republican AG that was not a feddie since that group was organized in 82. Bush nominated Gonzales to avoid a fight because almost all the judges he renominated are feddies and that is where he chose to fight.
say what?
So9
No wonder you're a Libertarian in exile. Thinking "okay...then what?" isn't too popular in the LP anymore.
I'd sleep fine... I'd have to wake up early to work petitioning congress to change the law.
You won't GET an Attorney General who says that in confirmation hearings, no matter how much you like to imagine it will happen.
The right will take power again only by imitating the tactics of the left in sneaking in and pretending to be moderates when they're radicals, or by constitutional amendment. Nothing in between will work, as the press will savage the right every chance it gets.
Why yes. We should have an AG who breaks the law. :eyeroll:
That is what is normally known as a Democrat, if we wanted that we would have elected john kerry.
We don't have to sneak and pretend to be moderates as most Republicans really are in effect "moderates". We just have to present our ideas honestly and free of the ability to be spun into "OMG he hates poor people" by the DNC.
I wonder if he will enforce the law that says the income tax is voluntary?
So, Gonzales should overturn laws he disagrees with?
Help me out here. Do you want him to interpret the Constitution, or not?
He has no choice but recognize that fact. Quit hyperventilating.
Many of us said at the time that Gonzales was perfectly acceptable as Attorney General. He would NOT be acceptable on the Supreme Court.
I hope and trust that Bush understands the distinction.
Same thing with Rudy Giuliani. He was perhaps the best mayor New York ever had, but I wouldn't vote for him for president or for the Senate. He'd be a great head of the FBI, too.
The question is, can Gonzalez have a major effect on abortion questions in this position? I don't think so. The AG doesn't make abortion law.
In hindsight, I would have as my Freepername libertarianinexile, but thought that I needed a capital letter to start with when I typed it in. It has caused me much hassle (hence my freeper homepage's opening tirade).
I am not nor have I ever been a contributor to the LP, or voted for its Presidential candidates against the GOP candidate. But we'd better get some conservatives on the SupCt if the slots come open.
Say, I had wondered what happened to Peroutka, if he had just racked up a couple more electoral votes (like TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY!), he could be planning to appoint his OWN Attorney General.
As it is, the American electorate decided to keep George W. Bush around for another four years, and if he, as a God-fearing, anti-abortion Christian, thinks Alberto Gonzales would make a good successor to John Ashcroft, that's good enough for me.
Gonzales isn't running for office. He is going to serve as the Attorney General and enforce the laws that are on the books fairly and without bias.
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.