Posted on 02/02/2005 6:33:50 AM PST by OXENinFLA
PROGRAM -- (Senate - February 01, 2005)
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General. A number of colleagues spoke on this nomination today, and we expect a full day of debate tomorrow as well. Under the agreement, we will alternate debate in 1-hour blocks throughout the day. Again, I encourage those Members who wish to speak on the Gonzales nomination to contact the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee as soon as possible.
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2005 -- (Senate - February 01, 2005) Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:15 a.m. on Wednesday, February 2. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and at 9:30 a.m. the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General, as provided under the previous order; provided that at 2:30 p.m. Senator Byrd be recognized for up to 1 hour.
Finally, the most important reason is that this is a foreshadowing of what we can expect when Supreme Court nomination hearings come up, and a preparation for more filibusters. Indeed, radical pro-abortion Senator Charles Schumer said of the Gonzales hearings: “There’s a lower standard, frankly, for attorney general than for judge, because you give the president who he wants.”
The Attorney General does not decide the future of Roe v. Wade, and never decides other abortion issues such as parental consent laws for minors. Furthermore, by focusing on the Gonzales memos, it diverts public attention toward Iraq policy and away from the continuous vicious tactics Senate Democrats employ every time President Bush chooses qualified minority candidates.
As it turns out, Alberto Gonzales is not a “blank slate” on abortion; his views are well known. He supports Roe v. Wade and is opposed to parental consent laws. As a Texas Supreme Court Justice, he voted with the majority against parental consent. In his opinion on the ruling, Gonzales wrote: “While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature.” (Italics mine). We can assume, therefore, that Alberto Gonzales would apply the law of the land (Roe v. Wade) by ruling to keep abortion legal if he were to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
In a 2001 interview, the Los Angeles Times asked Gonzales if he would allow his personal view on abortion to influence his choice of judges. He replied:
“There are no litmus tests for judicial candidates. My own personal feelings about abortion don’t matter. The question is, what is the law…sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that’s your job.”
That is exactly the neutered type of response given by Senator John Ashcroft during his confirmation hearings as Attorney General. President Bush obviously meant it when he said he’d have no litmus test for judicial candidates. In Gonzales’ own words: "My judgment is that the court has had ample opportunity to look at this issue," he said. "So far as I am concerned," he stated, the right to abortion is "the law of the land, and I will enforce it." Senate Democrats need not worry about the Supreme Court. It’s pro-lifers that should be worried.
He's doing very well!
Please see my previous post. Further down in the article, it speaks of reauthoriztion of the ban. Last year's expiration did not kill it completely.
I have been very pleased. Says he knows that the other side doesn't want any Republican on the Supreme Court and that we have approved them without putting them through this or filibustering judges or smearing great legal intellects. You know, Miss M., they are making these Republicans pretty angry. I hope it lasts.
Long and short. Whether he likes the laws or not, he'll enforce the laws on the books. If people want change, then they should contact their Congressman, or support pro-life judges and candidates for the courts and Congress.
"30 minute countdown to the ol West Virginia Mountaineer.."
That gave me a good laugh, thank you.
"Is their hatred for the President so bad that they transfer it to Alberto Gonzalez?"
Go Orrin!
Plenty. Believe me.
You are missing the Congress makes the law and he enforces the law.
You can sneer at me and call me a "goose stepper" if it makes you feel better about your holier-than-thou attitude toward the rest of us.
But I, for one, am proud to support a good and honest man like George W. Bush; he's done more for this country in four years than any president I know.
And now, with four more years and the country moving in a direction that most of us never dreamed could happen, here you are, carping about who he wants in his cabinet. You're one of those "snatch failure from the jaws of victory" types, aren't you?
For four years, Bush has held firm, has not wavered from his words and has said what he means and done what he said.
You can call me a BushBot for being in favor of giving him anything and everything he thinks he may need to fight the forces that have torn this country apart for the last fifty years.
I'll proudly stand with George W. Bush as he tries to BUILD UP something, not tear everything down.
I have always prided myself on admitting when I am mistaken. I am very open to reconsidering my assertions if you would please point them out.
'Where is my captain, O Captian?'
Forgive my ingnorance of Senate procedure, but why did Hatch call for a quorum call?
Can someone ping me a transcript when and if it's available? I'd love to hear Hatch's commentary again!
How many of the 100 senators are lawyers?
The AWB expired. Congress can only revive it with new legislation. President Bush has told Congress, if they go down that road, he will sign their death wish and sign the AWB into law.
One too many.
What you're missing is that he has a PERSONAL OPINION on it that he SAID he would ignore if circumstances put him in a situation where he had to rule on the law.
What is so damn hard for you to understand about that? He's ENTITLED to a personal opinion, just as Bush is entitled to who he wants as an AG.
Are you claiming that the Ashcroft Justice Department's recent memo about the right to keep and bear arms being an individual right as opposed to a collective right was meaningless?
It will probably be found later on his Senate site.
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.