He has been involved in some cases in the Texas Supreme Court that give the strong impression that he favors Roe vs Wade.
It was one case that caused this controversy. In his opinion on that case, he stated several things...
"…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."He also got alot of flack for saying he would support Roe v Wade as AG. Well, duh...since Roe v Wade IS THE LAW, he is only upholding the current law, that is his job. That DOES NOT mean he is pro-abortion. On the contrary, his opinions indicate that these cases troubled him deeply and he threw the ball back at the Legislature to correct the flawed law. The legislature came back the following session and did set a higher standard. Gonzales is a strict constructionist, and proved it in this case."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."
As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent’s right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute’s legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
"As a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect and guide their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the legislature has elected not to do so."
When he served as a Texas Supreme Court Justice, he ruled on just ten cases involving a state law that requires teens either to notify their parents before having an abortion or establish before a court that they are mature enough to be granted a judicial bypass. In eight of those cases, he ruled against the teens and did so even though the cases involved situations where the teen feared physical abuse from a parent.
He recently called illegal aliens "otherwise law abiding citizens" and suggested that local law enforcement should not be enlisted in upholding our immigration laws.
He said:
Personally, I would worry about a policy that permits someone, a local law enforcement official, to use this authority somehow as a club to harass -- they might be undocumented aliens, but otherwise lawful citizens.Translated: Other than their undocumented status, they have broken no laws. Please...take a reading comprehension course.
He was a board member of a La Raza affiliate organization. La Raza are the ones that have the motto which roughly translates to: For the Race everything; for the rest nothing.
Well at least you learned a lesson from our last conversation and called it an affiliate. However to clarify again as I did to you at the time, he was on the Board of Directors of the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans:
The Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans (AAMA) currently serves over 30,000 men, women, and children through more than 20 different programs. AAMA's mission is to advance the lives of at-risk youth and families through an array of innovative programs that provide education, social services, healthcare and human services, and community development in Texas cities.Hmmm...sounds pretty radical to me < /sarcasm>
Apparently, at least to you, having one of the most successful charter schools in the country and advocacy for the president's No Child Left Behind policies has little redeeming value - especially if that organization is pro-Hispanic.
I also must repeat that while LaRaza claims this as an affiliate, there is no mention of LaRaza at their website and not even a hint of any radical agenda. Many people join groups that are affiliated with other groups, that does not make them a member of the other group nor does it mean they endorse or embrace the other group's ideology. Some people believe that NASA is a Freemason organization and part of the Illuminati. By your logic, since the company I work for is a satellite of another company that worked with NASA during Appollo, I guess that makes me part of the Illumanati. Is it Six Degrees? Or am I really? I'll never tell... ; )
You are trying to reason with people that don't want the facts! Great post anyways.