This could be hugh and series.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted on 07/04/2005 9:20:24 PM PDT by GOPGuide
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." "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 also got alot of flack for saying he would support Roe v Wade as AG. Well...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.
Now...with that being said, I don't believe Gonzales is the best candidate as:
A Justice Gonzales would have to recuse himself from cases dealing with a wide range of issues — from the Patriot Act to partial-birth abortion — because of his high-level service in the Bush administration.Federal law is clear: No federal judge, including any Supreme Court justice, may participate in a case if he "has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." In addition, justices are to recuse themselves "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Given that Gonzales was Bush's White House counsel for the entirety of his first term, and is now attorney general, that means he will have to decline to participate in a lot of important cases.
The administration's legal positions could therefore lose ground precisely because one of their architects would be on the Court.
In an interview today, he defended the AG and said look at his record in Texas....not all the judges on the SCOTUS he appointed felt the same about abortion.
Heaven help us. I like Bush, but I am not so sure that my strong belief he would make sure somebody would agree with him on Roe before appointment is the case.
It is more likely that they would agree with him since he is going to look for strict constructionists, however.
You are either very misinformed or you have an agenda. See #181.
Then please explain why Bush's numbers are falling?
It would seem that if people are waking up, his approval would go north, not south.
That is my fear. Even if you think you know a justice, they can actually sometimes vote totally opposite of what you think they will do.
I have a lot of faith in Bush, but not all polls are some wild conspiracy.
I do think numbers should go up after the speech, but we will see.
Hopefully he will go before 2008. If he goes in 2008, Bush will probably defer to tradition and let the next president appoint.
We dang well better win in 2008, for if we do, there will DEFINITELY be some libs we can replace. Someone will have to die between 2008 and 2012.
There is noi such thing as communism. Worry about socialism in the broader sense, the destructiveness of the social democracy of a Kennedy. Worry about "moderate" republicans such as Blackmun and Berger,the Minnesota Twins who did more to undermine the Constitution than she has. At least she is out front and not a stealth liberal like Souter. who dissembled his way onto the Court.
Spoil sport! Also, 100% correct. We need to deal with the here and now.
I still see Ginsburg and Stevens both being replaced by the president elected in 2008. those are the two appointments that will reshape the court. They will keep Ginsburg alive by machine and feeding tube if necessary until 2008.
his approval numbers are falling due to gasoline prices and the constant drumbeat of bad news from iraq. you need not look any further then that.
Thanks, that is my reading too of the thumbnail sketch of him I read. I do agree as I said in one of my earlier posts that having to recuse himself a lot early on on cases about the War on Terror etc is a concern. But that would be a trade-off for getting a healthy 49 year old on the court.
There is no way we will be that lucky. President Bush simply will not do that. He'll put GOnzales up there, sadly enough.
This could be hugh and series.
Agreed...IF he were a member of the SCOTUS...but he is not and therefore cannot do anything about Roe v. Wade but enforce it, that was my point on Roe v. Wade. I will however defend him on the TX Supreme Court on parental notification case. Many Freepers are clearly misinformed, calling him pro-abortion, hence the need for me to post his opinions, which BTW show clear constructionism and a sense that the decision troubled him. He threw the issue back to the Legislature to correct it and they did in the next session.
We can have food fights (abortion, guns, immigration, etc.) all day long on him, but it does not negate the main legal issue of recusal. IMHO, rather than wasting our time arguing amongst ourselves about specific issues, we should oppose him on the basis of recusal and be done with it.
They can piss and moan and filibuster all they want but they will not get their way this time. The sooner they face up to that the bettor off the country will be.
"I believe the LORD is at work here!!"
Here is my prayer.....that those judges and govt. officials who would seek to remove God and render His Words void ...that God would work to remove them and render their words void. We invite you God to intervene your will and choices for judges. AMEN!
There is a govt. style that chooses to remove the influence of God. It's called communism, socialism, fascism etc...... WAKE UP AMERICA!
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.