GONZALES UPDATE Email from C.J. Wilkie

Human Events Online ^ | July 6, 2005 | C.J. Wilkie

[Texasforever]

How do you feel about Gonzales?

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.

[JCEccles]

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.

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.

[k2blader]

A: The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

*Anyone* who thinks this way should NEVER sit in the Supreme Court.

[Texasforever]

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.

Sadly many around here want exactly that.

[wardaddy]

Amen breddah.

Gonzales is not the man.

[nunya bidness]

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.

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.

[Howlin]

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.

Are you under the impression the United States Supreme Court goes LOOKING for cases to change the laws of this country?

[Travis McGee]

[Howlin]

and that Senator Lott recently learned such remarks can result in a very negative political reality.

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!

[wardaddy]

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. Sadly many around here want exactly that.

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?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

"The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is."
Ours is government of laws, senior, not a government of men...

[Texasforever]

I don't know. GW is as stubborn as a mule when it comes to loyalty. The attacks on Gonzales have been way over the top and I can see him doing it. It is obvious that he thinks Gonzales is qualified so he would not be going against his own principles. He has stated consistently that there will be no social litmus test for anyone he puts forward. He has stated that from the time he first ran. He did make the statement about Scalia and Thomas BUT why not the same about Rehnquist? Scalia is very strong on the 10th amendment and Thomas is to a certain extent. Rehnquist is much less inclined to limiting federal powers. I think if GW has a litmus test it is the 10th.

[MJY1288]

You make a good point, but I don't think we know how Gonzales would vote as a SC Justice. But considering his past decisions in Texas on Parental Notification, I would guess he he believes that the Constitution says the right to an Abortion is covered under the 14th Amendment. So if I was doing the nominating, I would not choose Gonzales for that ruling alone.

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

[wardaddy]

there is no such thing as federal common law homicide

"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

[wardaddy]

So if I was doing the nominating, I would not choose Gonzales for that ruling alone.

Good for you....common sense over pinheadedness

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"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?

[nunya bidness]

I think if GW has a litmus test it is the 10th.

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.

[Texas Federalist]

My whole point is that the SCOTUS is not where laws should be overturned. After all, that is what we are all complaining about in the "Takings" ruling two weeks ago.

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.

[pawdoggie]

On the contrary, acitivism it NOT reverting back to what the constitution originally intended. Activism is when you take the responsibilites given by the constitution from Legislative Branch to the Judicial Branch of Government. Righting an illegal act is not activism, it's justice.

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.

[Texasforever]

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 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.