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.
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.
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.
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
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.
BBbbwwaaahahahaaaa!
So9
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.
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.
AND!we all thought we only had to worry about IMMIGRATION! After a while we will need a calculator to keep track of all those things that Bug us!
Being pro-life in your ideology just won't cut the mustard, unless you put that ideology in motion. You don't like abortion? Become an activist in supporting pro-life candidates for the Congress, your state Legislature, and courts at all levels of government, from the state level, up to the federal level. Attorney's Generals don't create laws, they enforce them. The last time I checked, abortion was legalized under Roe v. Wade. There is a thing called "Separation Of Powers". Ashcroft understood this, Gonzalez understand it. The only ones who don't are the Liberals in Congress and in this country trying to undermine the Bush administration at every turn.