Posted on 07/02/2005 12:48:13 AM PDT by tame
Presidential aides are floating White House Counsel Al Gonzales as a potential Supreme Court nominee.
But nominating Gonzales could pit President Bush against some of his own supporters in a bitter confirmation battle.
Citing "administration officials," the Washington Post reports that despite "frank opposition among conservative activists" Gonzales "is still very much in the running and might well be nominated—if not first, then eventually."
Many Senate Democrats will oppose any Bush pick. But why would conservatives oppose Gonzales? At first glance, he seems like the perfect nominee.
Gonzales is the President's longtime friend. Bush could make him the first Latino named to the court. Like Clarence Thomas, his life story (son of migrant laborers goes to Harvard Law) evokes the colorblind vision of America conservatives want to promote.
"Conservatives," says the Post, "are concerned about Gonzales's views on affirmative action and abortion."
In truth, the case against Gonzales revolves around one question: Is he a judicial activist?
The answer—Yes!—was delivered by none other than Justice Priscilla Owen, whom Bush has nominated twice for an appeals court seat, and with whom Gonzales served on the Texas Supreme Court.
Owen and Gonzales took opposite stands on Re Jane Doe, which involved Texas's parental notification law.
Jane Doe, 17, came from the sort of household most likely to support Bush. Her parents were church-going pro-lifers, who had just bought her a car and intended to pay her expenses when she attended college.
She did not tell them she planned to abort their grandchild.
The law said a judge could exempt a teenager from telling her parents if: 1) she was "mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision," 2) notification would not be in her "best interests," or 3) "notification might lead to physical, sexual or emotional abuse."
Doe sought the "mature and sufficiently well informed" exemption because, as Owen later noted, she "feared that her parents would no longer provide financial assistance to her if they knew she had an abortion."
A judge said Doe had to tell her parents. An appeals court agreed. The Texas Supreme Court said the judge and appeals courts had not erred, but remanded the case for a new trial anyway.
In doing so, the majority wrote a "rule" defining "sufficiently well informed" so that Doe need not be informed at all about the new life within her. She need only consult a health care provider about the risks of abortion (Doe consulted an abortion clinic), understand the alternatives (Doe consulted an abortion clinic) and be aware of abortion's emotional and psychological "aspects" (Doe consulted three friends, her home-economics teacher and an abortion clinic).
Gonzales co-wrote the rule. Owen dissented. Justice David Souter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, she noted, conceded the state had a legitimate interest in compelling women to comprehend fetal life because, as Casey put it, "most women considering an abortion would deem the impact on the fetus relevant, if not dispositive to the decision."
Doe had a second trial. The judge did not issue a specific finding, but presumably failed her on the "mature" test. The appeals court upheld his ruling.
Less than 48 hours after receiving the trial record, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, sent Doe to get an abortion in 15th week of pregnancy without telling her parents. Gonzales joined the decision. Owen dissented.
Ultimately, the issue was the legitimate power of the state Supreme Court.
"The question in this case is not whether this court would have ruled differently when confronted with all the evidence that the trial court heard," wrote Owen. "The question is whether legally sufficient evidence supports the trial court's judgment. The answer to this later question is yes. Longstanding principles of appellate review and our Texas Constitution do not permit this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court and or to ignore the evidence, as it has done."
Gonzales and four colleagues converted the Supreme Court into a trial court, retried a case in which they had not seen the witnesses, and sent a teenager to a secret abortion.
Don't take my word for it. Take Priscilla Owen's. "The court," she said, "has disregarded the law and has trampled the process on which the legitimacy of our law depends."
Please pass this on to your respective ping lists (if you have a ping list).
Thanks for the ping, tame.
Interesting info here. Adding this to my short (but sweet :-) list of reasons why I completely reject the idea of Gonzales as the nominee.
That said, I'd actually be surprised if the Prez tried to shove him down our throats.
I pray Bush means what he says about favoring someone along the lines of Scalia.
Gonzalez is NO Scalia.
Whom do you think will also retire?
If he doesn't, the social conservatives will sit out elections for the next decade.
The court's job isn't to enforce law it's to decide if the law is within what is allowed by the US CONSTITUTION !
In fact, a perfect Judge would rule that abortion is legal if a state says it is and the SCOTUS should send it back to the state to decide !
So El Presidente wishes to appoint his pro-abortion, dim-bulb affirmative-action hack, Reconquistador Attorney General to the Council of Grand Ayatollahs Washington, DF. Oh, that's a bi-i-i-i-i-i-g surprise! Maybe Jorge can then proclaim himself the Caudillo of the Nuevo Republica-Bananna del America Norte.
No.
If he doesn't the social conservatives should break ranks with the Repubs and form a third political party.
Without social conservatives the Repubs are just Democrats with a no-tax policy - sort of like Democrat light.
I also understand Gonzalez is no supporter of the Second Amendment and is lax on illegal invaders.
Surely Rehnquist will retire, and I hope Stevens (85), too. Anyway, he hates Republicans and probably he will remain in Court untill he dies. Damn.
This is the mother of all battles that we've all been eagerly anticipating. This is what it all comes down to. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where we all find out just how committed you are to changing the course of a corrupted judiciary.
We can always count on Democrat Presidents to give us leftist judges. It's about time we should be able to count on Republican Presidents to give us truly conservative judges.
Mr. President, I implore you and I pray that you will appoint no less than the best possible conservative judge to the Supreme Court of the United States.
One of the most disheartening things--if not the most disheartening thing--to grassroots conservative activists is the fact that both Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush gave us More leftist SCOTUS judges than they did conservative judges:
1)O'Connor, 2)Kennedy, 3)Souter=bad.
1)Thomas, 2)Scalia=Good. The picture gets even worse when we add in Nixon's SCOTUS appointments (notwithstanding Rehnquist).
You can improve on this GOP Presidential trend. Now is the time. You can help to pull us from "the edge of the cliff". It's not too late.
Mr. President, if not now, when? If not your administration, who?
Al Gonzalez may be a friend of yours, but he is no Scalia. And you did express your desire to have a SCOTUS judge like Scalia.
Mr. President, please take to heart the implicit--if not explicit--message of Priscilla Owen (whom you recently appointed to the bench): Al Gonzalez is a judicial activist.
I would ad that he is therefore unqualified for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. President, please pick as your SCOTUS nominee the very best conservative judge who believes in sticking to the original meaning of the constitution, and who values the right to life of all humans (including the unborn).
Sincerely, tame.
Not much. Only everything.
The court's job isn't to enforce law it's to decide if the law is within what is allowed by the US CONSTITUTION !
That's exactly why Gonzalez would make a bad choice. He substituted and enforced his own will over the legislature (make sure to read the facts of the case).
In fact, a perfect Judge would rule that abortion is legal if a state says it is
Not if he consistently applies the 5th and 14th amendments.
and the SCOTUS should send it back to the state to decide !
Gonzalez was deciding a state case. He took on a very activist role in usurping his will over the clearly constitutional statute enacted by the legislature. Please get up to speed on the facts of that case.
We should pray that God would cause the leftist judges to repent, retire, or rest in peace.
What's interesting is that I prayed that specific prayer (also that God would help our nation) the day before O'Conner announced her retirement!
Try, Try again...
As the old truism goes - a picture is worth a thousand words.
Amen. I'm about ready to leave - after 25 years of support. I've had it with the lies and the empty promises from the plaid-pants wing of the Republican party - the wing in complete control of the entire scam.
Dhimmicrats lite. It's the perfect description. At least the Kerrys, the Kennedys, and the rest are honest about the fact that they are our enemies. The fiercely oppose everything the rank and file conservatives believe in - and the feeling is mutual. Contrast this with the plaid-pants platoon - the ultimate used-car salesmen running the Republican party.
They mouth patriotic phrases as they sell our smart-bomb technology to China at bargain-basement prices. They talk up the need for consevative judges and appoint David Souters. They talk tough about security and leave the borders open to hordes of criminals who murder and molest at will, then side with the Mexican narco-regime to keep the killers from facing any real justice. At every single opportunity, they slip the knife into the back of those who supported them in good faith.
If the jihadis take over what's left of the USA after these vultures are done picking clean the bones of the republic, I sincerely hope that the first infidels to have their heads sliced off nice and slow are plaid-pants platoon of liberal Republicans. There's nothing worse than a traitor. There's just something that is particularly repulsive and amoral about selling out your own people.
It's Mr. President to you, go back to MoveOn.Org, this is not a communist 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.