Skip to comments.GONZALES UPDATE Email from C.J. Wilkie
Posted on 07/06/2005 9:01:05 PM PDT by guitarist
Email from C.J. Willkie Referenced by the Times
Editor's Note: Below is the full text of an email from C.J. Willkie that was quoted in today's New York Times cover article "G.O.P. Asks Conservative Allies To Cool Rhetoric Over the Court"
About a year ago, I attended a meeting of almost 500 Conservative leaders. Judge Gonzales spoke to a general session, and I was able to ask him the following:
Q: Judge Gonzales, were hearing conflicting reports about your position on abortion. Can you tell us where you stand?
A: As a judge, I have to make judgments in conformity with the laws of our nation.
Q: Would you say that, regarding Roe vs. Wade, stare decisis would be governing here? (Note, stare decisis means that he would continue to uphold that decision because he would regard it as a binding precedent.)
In response to this, there was a loud, spontaneous murmur across the entire auditorium of an oooooh. Rising above that were clearly audible boos.
Approximately two months later, I was privileged to be part of a smaller group of business executives at a meeting in the White House. One of the people who spoke to our group was Alberto Gonzales. I was again able to ask a question:
Q: Judge Gonzales, its well known that the Clinton administration had a very clear and consistent litmus test in regard to judicial nominations. If that person was not pro-abortion, they were not nominated. In light of this, do you ask your nominees what their position is on abortion?
A: No, we do not. We judge them on a very broad basis of conservatism and constitutional construction.
Q: Many of us feel that the Constitution does not speak to permissive abortion. Would you comment?
A: The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.
There were no audible oooohs this time, but as the day went on, including the social evening, a significant number of those attending individually sought me out. Each expressed their deep reservation about this man being nominated to the Supreme Court.
Through the summer and fall, we heard almost nothing more about Judge Gonzales being nominated. But, more recently, his name has again been floated in Washington as possibly Bushs first nominee. At a meeting of 65 pro-life leaders the day after the January 22nd March, my partner, Brad Mattes, asked a public question of Viet Dinh, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, US Department of Justice. Mr. Mattes reminded him of Judge Gonzales sharp criticism of Judge Owen and his answers to the questions (above). He stated that we did not need another Souter, Kennedy or OConnor on the Supreme Court. Abortion has been legal for 30 years and over 43 million babies have died. Its time that we put justices on the court who will reverse Roe vs. Wade and stop the killing Judge Gonzales is not acceptable to the pro-life, pro-family movement. Uniform applause throughout the room followed his statement. Mr. Dinhs reply, we felt, was quite inadequate, as he did not directly address Mr. Mattes comments.
The other speaker on the panel, Manuel Miranda, Senior Counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, explained that Judge Gonzales words were flippant remarks. Mr. Mattes responded that, flippant or not, the remarks were made and that Senator Lott recently learned such remarks can result in a very negative political reality. No amount of political rhetoric or explaining can excuse what weve heard from Judge Gonzales, and I suggest that you gentlemen move on and select a justice who is truly a strict constructionist If Mr. Gonzales is nominated to the US Supreme Court, Life Issues Institute would probably respond by educating its radio audience of four million people and communicating with over ten thousand pro-life leaders and educators.
Mr. Mattes spoke in some detail of the esteem and love that we hold for President Bush. We respect his leadership and are grateful for his pro-life actions to date. But he noted that the Supreme Court nominations will be the most important thing the President can do for the babies. As a result, Life Issues Institute would have to oppose a Gonzales nomination. Again, Mr. Mattes comments were followed by general applause....
Now is the time to act, before the President nominates a candidate to the Court. A broad representation of pro-life, pro-family leaders and citizens must quickly communicate to Mr. Bush that Mr. Gonzales is not an acceptable justice to our nations highest court.
First, we must praise the President for his outstanding pro-life stand and actions. He is without doubt the most pro-life and the most effective pro-life President in modern times. But we must also point out to him, in personal visits, letters, emails, faxes or by any avenue that you might have access to the president, that the most important thing he can do is nominate solidly pro-life candidates to the US Supreme Court.
Mr. Gonzales deserves praise for his ongoing recommendation of good judicial candidates to Bush. We are pleased with those that he has recommended for the lower courts. In doing this, he is faithfully following the Presidents direction. But if he joins the US Supreme Court, he will then be beholden to no one and will be voting his own convictions and conscience. We are deeply concerned about what some of these future votes will be.
Related NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/politics/politicsspecial1/06scotus.html?pagewanted=2
Gonzales may be pro-life, but he has given no public message of that sort. If President Bush isn't 110% sure that Gonzales will be absolutely pro-life then he should not nominate him!
Gonzales is not a goer. President Bush should immediately strike him from the list - if he hasn't already.
That's Spanish for "Souter."
\We need to ask these Nominee's how they view the Constitution and how much importance do they put on the Founding Fathers original intent, not these hot button Liberal issues. Roe-v-Wade will die of a thousand cuts, not a single decision handed down from the SCOTUS
That's original :-)
I bellieve he was nominated for the AG position just because Dubya knew he would not nominate him for the SCOTUS. I believe Gonzales knew this before he accepted the Nomination to become the U.S. Attorney General from his Boss. Without Dubya, Gonzales would still be an unknown Hispanic in Texas
A: The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is."
Hey Gonzalez, this is the United States of America, and NO, the Constitution is NOT WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IT IS!! The constitution is what THE CONSTITUTION SAYS IT IS. PERIOD. NO IF ANDS OR BUTS. READ IT AND OBEY IT OR GET OFF THE BENCH, you activist judge, you.
Very well stated but some folks on here cannot get it through their brains that getting rid of Roe V. Wade is being done in increments and will never happen in one ruling. They cannot see the forest for the trees IMHO!
Slavery was established law too, and it was the law of the land longer than Roe V Wade. Did that make it right? Just because a law is "established" doesn't make it right OR legal. The SCOTUS usurped it's responsibity in Roe V Wade by MAKING law rather than interpreting the law. The Constitution does not even mention abortion or deal with the matter of when life begins or ends, so how can the SCOTUS interpret what wasn't mentioned in the first place. It's called "Acitivisn", making law which is ursurping that power given ONLY to the U.S. Congress.
Gonzales: "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is."
Well, at least he is honest and objective. That is what the US has come to for many years now.
Too many "conservatives" base their whole political outlook on overturning Roe vs Wade. Just plain ain't gonna happen!
As much as I hate abortion, I have to say that I don't EVER see it being overturned; and at this stage of the game, there are things far more important to the future of our Nation to be considered.
This is why I would not want to see a Judge Moore on the Court
"Roe-v-Wade is established law and it will not be re-argued."
It almost was overruled in 1992:
As lawyers and court watchers have long suspected, the Supreme Court was ready to effectively overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1992, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy got cold feet, and the vote went the other way.
Internal notes in the papers of late Justice Harry A. Blackmun reveal the secretive dealings that led to the court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that year.
Blackmun's extensive records from 24 years on the court were opened Thursday.
Details of the archives were first reported by National Public Radio, which got advance access.
Blackmun's notes show that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist led a five-justice majority to overrule Roe. Four other justices voting with Rehnquist were Byron White, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Kennedy. Rehnquist himself was to write the majority opinion.
IMHO, Established Law should only be overturned by the Amendment Process. This is how we reversed bad law in the past, and this is how our Founders set it up. To change it any other way would be Judicial Activism, no matter how we spin it.
I agree. I am pro life but it's been very clear to me for a while that the pro life leadership is still stuck fighting the 1973 battle they lost. They have been stunted and stymied since then.
The leadership needs to be replaced.
Activism on the right is the same as activism on the left. A wrong is a wrong, I just wish more people saw it the way some of here do!
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.