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.
I think there are much better choices. He was not impressive in his confirmation hearings. I don't think GW is going to nominate him but with all of the attacks he may.
Homicide as defined by state statutes covers most cases. There are federal laws proscribing homicide in special cases and in areas under exclusive or concurrent federal jurisdiction. A defendant might be tried for murder by both sovereigns for the same act.
On the other hand, there is no such thing as federal common law homicide, and SCOTUS is powerless to create and impose one.
Abortion cannot and will not be declared murder in all the states by SCOTUS decision. That would require audacious judicial legislating of a nature not seen even in the most activist decisions.
*Anyone* who thinks this way should NEVER sit in the Supreme Court.
Sadly many around here want exactly that.
Amen breddah.
Gonzales is not the man.
I agree. Except that I don't think GW will nominate him out of spite. That would go against Bush's character.
Obviously I'd like to see Janis Rogers Brown elevated but that may be a bridge too far.
I'm taken back to W's words in the 2000 election regarding Scalia and Thomas and that's comforting.
This one is for all the marbles pop. I don't know about you but I punched W's ticked just for this event so color me interested.
Are you under the impression the United States Supreme Court goes LOOKING for cases to change the laws of this country?
Would you look at that! Alberto Gonzales saying that he would uphold the laws of this land is being compared to what Trent Lott said about Strom Thurmond!
Abortion was declared legal in all 50 states via judical activism drawn from thin air. Why would declaring abortion illegal in all 50 states be more audacious and sad?
I believe every SC Justice should be an originalist and ever Policy decision should never be accepted by the Supreme Court unless a lower Court's decision is unconstitutional. The notion that the Constitution is a "Living, Breathing" Document that is subject to interpretation on the basis of evolving standards of decency is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.
When I sign a legally binding contract, the terms of that contract are not open to a different interpretation because the interest rate has changed. All parties must renegotiate a new contract, a lawyer can't simply dictate them
"common law homicide"????
check Westlaw's Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Federal homicide...it's in there....mandatory removal upon death (RUD)or death penalty...parole is not an option
Good for you....common sense over pinheadedness
"Roe-v-Wade is established law and it will not be re-argued."
You mean like the issue of slavery and the prohibition Volstead Act were never re-argued? Not good to ban booze, but OK to continue murdering babies?
If that's the case and Gonzales is of the same mind then RvW will be remanded back to the states.
But if Gonzales gets wobbly don't expect Bush to nominate him. Loyalty only goes so far and the left is in love with Gonzales at this point so factor that in.
Either way it's going to be a long and hot summer.
The takings case was a perfect example of an activist court upholding a legislative enactment. An originalist would have overturned the act of the legislature. My point was the same that Robert Bork made on Hannity & Colmes tonight - that an "activist" should be defined by how he interprets the constitution, not how often he overturns the legislature.
The problem with adopting the Left's favorite tactic of legislating through the court is that the next time there is a majority of Leftist justices (which might be only one administration away), they will return the favor, and reinstate Roe. That's why a Constitutional Amendment is the only way to go.
I didn't say "more" I just said it would be the same type of activism. As to from "thin air" that is not true. R v W was decided on an interpretation that relied on the 14th amendment and 9th amendments TO THE CONSTITUTION. That is the problem. The 14th amendment effectively nullified the 10th amendment. Without the 14th amendment argument R v W would have never been upheld since there would have been no constitutional basis for overturning state laws on social issues. To say that R v W is unconstitutional is wrong since the Constitution namely the 14th and 9th amendments were the basis of the arguments. You can argue that the interpretation is wrong but you can't argue that the 1973 Constitution was violated. However; the Constitution of 1778 WAS violated.
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.