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, we’re 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.)
A: Yes.
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, it’s 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 Bush’s 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 O’Connor on the Supreme Court. “Abortion has been legal for 30 years and over 43 million babies have died. It’s 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. Dinh’s 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 we’ve 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 nation’s 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 President’s 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.
The hypocrisy of the far left and the far right knows no bounds.
If O'Connor, Ginsberg and Rehnquist are replaced with originalists, it will die a quick death and be overturned as many cases are. The court will find its solace when the "sky is falling" left realizes that repealing Roe won't have much effect on a woman's ability to have an abortion in most states.
The "thousand cuts" approach will be germaine to the subsequent approach to ban abortion in the states. Most will only limit it. Utah may be the only state to ban it entirely. Some state supreme courts may even find a right to abortion in state consitutions.
Rino alert? What do you mean it MAY be the right thing to do? Sheesh.
Symbolism over substance, 'eh?
So you want your very own activist court. How are you any different than Ted Kennedy?
Mr. Gonzapes is anti-Second Ammendment.
I'm going to predict, right here and right now, that if Gonzales is nominated, the Republicans will LOSE the Senate majority in 2006. And lose seats in the house.
Why bother voting if a Republican vote means we're still going to get another gun grabbing "my word is law" judicial activist?
That won't be hard, as soon as an apparent pro-life majority takes hold of the Court, a test case won't be hard to find.
However, if the argument is that abortion is murder and should be banned in all states then it would take an "activist conservative" court to overturn R v W. It may be the right thing to do BUT it would still be judicial activism.
I apologize in advance if I am putting words into your mouth, but it seems that you are implying that it is "activist" for the Court to overturn a legislative enactment. True "activism" is ignoring the original meaning of the Consitution, regardless of whether a law is upheld or overturned. In fact, if you read the opinions from this term, Clarence Thomas voted to overturn laws more than any justice on the Court.
"The hypocrisy of the far left and the far right knows no bounds."
For Pete's sake! Get your head out! The motivational factors for liberals and conservatives are as different as night and day. To equate both ends of the political spectrum and the means to advance them as equal is so superficial. Would think an engineer could think deeper than that.
You seem to really like this Texas judge. Not everything from TX is great.
I meant to copy you on the last post too to get your comments on the second part of my post.
I sometimes get the feeling that Gonzales is a "stealth" candidate - - the GOP answer to the Democrats' Souter con job. Of course, the days of scumbags like Rudman being taken seriously are long gone thanks to the dying off of the socialist "mainstream" newsrooms and the continuing takeover of the selection and dissemination of the news by the "new" media.
Don't worry, Everyone knew there was gonna be a vacancy on the Court before Gonzales was nominated to be the AG, If GWB nominates Gonzales, it will be his third Nomination that replaces Ginsburg in 2007
Bump. Thanks for this acct.
I think Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As you observe, he ceratinly believes in a Living Consitution and is NOT a strict constructionsist or an Originalist, but rather tends towrd the activist side per National Review Online and others.
No I said that if the court ruled against R v W on the basis of the 10th amendment then that is a constitutionally sound rejection. However, if the court over ruled the 10th amendment protections of the states as they did in the original R v W then they would be using the same activism of the liberal courts in reverse.
Saying something like this should be grounds for immediate removal from any public office, followed by a speedy prosecution.
L
Liberals understand that if they place all their eggs on who sits on the bench, they know they can bypass elections. Nothing they have to offer will ever survive the voting booth, so Tyrants like Kennedy and Schumer will fight to the death over who is on the Bench
Tell me, what else was the USSC created for if not to be the final arbiter of the constitution. Why did the founders create the 3rd branch of government for if it has no function?
Sadly, some people here don't understand the meaning of those words. Neither are they knowledgeable of what the SCTOUS actually does. They want a genie, who when they rub that magic lamp, will grant them what they think they want...IMMEDIATELY. That is also what they want from a president, whom they imagine can act like a dictator or king.
Reality and facts are an anathema to them.
And for all of the wailing, gnashing of teeth, and caviling around here, the one thing some people just don't get, is that GONZALES HASN'T BEEN NOMINATED TO REPLACE O'CONNOR AND HE WAS NEVER ON THAT SHORT LIST TO BEGIN WITH!
Your prediction is funny; really too funny for words and dead wrong to boot. But then, it's based on smoke and mirrors and red herrings.
No they understand it but they want one thing and one thing only, THEIR OWN ACTIVIST COURT". I don't want a judge nominated because of his/her stance on one issue. That person may be ready and willing to overturn R v W but what about the hundreds of other issues he/she may decide?
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.