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.
"Gonzales"
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Saying something like this should be grounds for immediate removal from any public office, followed by a speedy prosecution.
L
*Anyone* who thinks this way should NEVER sit in the Supreme Court.
Amen breddah.
Gonzales is not the man.
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.”