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.
Agreed
I would suggest to FReepers that their (our) best tactic in opposing Gonzales is to tell the White House that we know he will be under great pressure, perhaps a moral obligation also, to remove himself from consideration of various issues -- including some national security matters -- if he's on the Court, due to his prior role as Attorney General. In addition, Bush does not need a bloody struggle over another nomination for Attorney General.
I'm offended by Bush's attack on conservatives for daring to make known their views that Gonzales would not be a good pick for the Court. These have not been attacks on his character, but doubts about his being among the best possible candidates. It would be nice if W. would show some sensitivity to how much we care about judicial tyranny and the social issues, on which the courts have done so much damage. It would also be nice if he wouldn't appear to blame the right and the left equally for the incivility of the nomination process.
But despite his reputation to the contrary, this president can be rather thin-skinned when he's criticized from the right. I have real doubts that his heart is really with us sometimes. But we cannot let such frustrations excessively color our public comments, or our comments when we call or write the White House. Bush is a proud man, and his people probably reflect this mentality. So we must make very calm, pragmatic arguments against Gonzales. Not very gratifying, but I'm afraid it's the only way.
Not exactly. Lawyers for political groups look for test cases to challege laws they think are unconstitutional all the time. Also, the Court may be more likely to take a case they see as an opportunity to overturn bad precedent. For example, if there are ever five anti-Roe judges on the Court, a state legislature (like Utah) may pass a restrictive abortion law hoping to draw a test case from a pro-choice group. The Court, knowing it has the votes to overturn Roe, would be more likely to take the case.
"was not impressive in the confirmation hearings."
I agree. From what I saw of Gonzales in his interactions with the Rat pukes on the Judiciary committee, this was a man of either second-rate intellect, or excessive timidity. These people richly deserved a tougher and more pointed response than they got. And it would have been oh- so-easy. Instead, what I heard was the usual Beltway-GOP pablum. Indeed, not impressive, and a poor omen.
That is activism, plain and simple. I don't like it coming from the left, and I don't like it coming from the right
Gnite all, it's been a good debate tonight
Oh that's real nice. Please Bush, pick somebody else.
“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.”And if the President appoints this RINO in conservative's clothing, he'll alienate just about enough of the base to begin handing Congress back to Democrats. Cronyism be damned. If he doesn't want his pretend conservative friends' positions questioned, he shouldn't invite them to D.C. I didn't mindlessly vote GOP for all this time for Dubya to blow it all by appointing moderates to the SC.
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:[Gonzales speaking] 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.”
If it's not where blatantly unconstitutional laws, like CFR, should be overturned, then where should the be? The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, restricts the power of Congress. To enforce the Constitution SCOTUS needs to be able to refuse to enforce monstrosities like CFR.
It was somewhere in the new media--here or somewhere?--where someone (sorry, I am fuzzy on the details), Gonzales' sister?, was giving assurances that he is pro-life, and that his Texas court opinions were just a matter of following the parental notification law. Just a rumor as far as I know. I don't think Gonzales will be nominated for O'Connor or Rehnquist. But if Bush gets a 3rd or 4th nomination, look for him then. Which is all the more interesting, since that could be Ginsburg or Stevens, the actual vote to overturn Roe!
I think you're probably right.
Wow. You seem to think it's activist if the judges get lunch. The method in which they take cases is not activist. The way they decide them can be. The Court gets thousands of appeals each year and can only take a few. What are they supposed to do, draw it out of a hat? It is completely legitimate for the court to choose a case so that it can overturn bad precedent, like the eminent domain case. As long as they are following the constitution, it is not activist.
The legal argument likely will not be that abortion is murder and certainly won't be that it is morally wrong. The argument that carries the day will be very constitutionally focused. It will likely be a civil case of woman who is denied an abortion pursuant to statute suing the state or criminal case of a doctor arrested for performing one. They will argue that the right to perform an abortion is protected in the Constitution, citing Roe. The state will argue that Roe is bad law and should be overturned, and their is no right to abortion in the consititution.
"The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
And the Dred Scott decision never happened did it?????
People need to understand that if the USSC overturned Roe today abortion would still be illegal in all 50 States tomorrow. However, the issue would become a State one and State legislatures would be free to decide the issue for their respective states (consistent with their state constitutions). Some states would make it illegal and some sates wouldn't. THAT's the democratic way.
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.