Gonzales once referred to the Roe vs. Wade decision as "settled law". Putting aside even his position on abortion itself, if that's the way he sees court decisions then he definitely doesn't belong on the S.C.
____________________________________________________
Of course as a presidential advisor, Attorney General or even a Texas Supreme Court Judge, Roe v. Wade was settled law. That is he was in no position to overturn that decision in any of those position and to do his job had to accept the current "settled law."
As you say, if he would not return to the Constitution on issues where the court has strayed from the constitution like the recent "international" death penalty decision or Roe v. Wade or the Enemy Combatant decision, then he does not belong on the SCOTUS. However if he was only talking about the reality of doing his job at the time, then I would want to know more about him.
Does this noble fealty to the "law" also cover his ruling against parental notification for abortions while on the Texas S.C.?
-Dan
Oh, he's more liberal than just upholding Roe v. Wade. (Actually either side in the Texas case challeneged Roe v. Wade.)
Texas passed a law requiring parental consent. To make the law pass constitutional muster, they permitted exceptions. Gonzalez voted to permit judges to uniformly waive parental consent as the norm.
Apart from the abortion issue, it was terrible law. The legislature, recognizing the need for judgment, had given judges precisely what they are always asking for, discretion. The judge, who not only permitted anyone before him to get an abortion, but also, in doing so, became the "go-to" guy, was clearly abusing his discretion. So what Gonzalez was insisting on was the absence of what for thouosands of years had been the basis of jurisprudence: only a law which offered no discretion would be able to acheive the legislative aims of the pro-lifers.