Posted on 07/07/2005 10:32:52 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Quite a bit different from Gonzales' assertion that "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is."
In 1997, Garza joined his colleagues on the 5th Circuit in striking down a Louisiana law that gave judges excessive authority to deny abortions to juveniles, but his vote came with a caveat.
If he is one the Supreme Court, he doesn't have to be bound by their decisions like he does on lower courts.
Watch for this false talking point, which manages to slander at once J. Cardozo, the President, and any Hispanic that the President may choose to appoint.
Benjamin Cardozo was a celebrated legal scholar and jurist, and his family did hail from Portugal, but he was a Sephardic Jew (and proud of it). Numerous Jewish legal scholarships, etc., bear his name, including the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University.
The purpose of asserting Cardozo was "Hispanic," when the identity politicians of the Left don't accept European Spaniards, usually, let alone Portuguese, let alone distinct ethnic minorities who chanced to dwell in Portugal, is to deprive any "first Hispanic justice" of legitimacy as such.
Personally, I believe it's stupid to play identity politics with the court. Anybody that makes judicial rulings based on race, nationality, skin tone or sex ought to be competing for a vacancy on a Sharia court in Iran, because we're supposed to make these calls on facts and law, not on race and emotion.
But since our enemies want to play the identity politics game, it's incumbent on us to flag them when they cheat, as this writer just did.
Dirtbag.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Very impressive. I particularly like his ethical standards. My only concern is that I wonder if someone so shy could stand up to the public anal exam that would be administered to him by the guardians of all things liberal - Chucky Schumer and Ted Kennedy et al. and be coherently able to defend the originalist interpretation of the Constitution. To be able to defend them in a written opinion is one thing. To be able to verbalize them under the eyes of the nation is another. Scalia is one who can do both. Although he's a lawyer and presumably trained in public speaking to some extent, I've also heard some rather inarticulate ones as well.
This was the only action he can be permitted to make. Appeals judges do not have the authority to overturn SCOTUS decisions, however distasteful. Instead he followed the law as he swore in his oath to do, and expressed his displeasure at doing so in no uncertain terms. If elevated to the Supreme Court he then has the authority and the duty to vote to overturn it. This is perfectly consistent with an originalist interpretation of the rule of law and also acknowledges that he is not one to usurp authority that is not his to begin with.
I sincerely hope the President won't nominate Gonzales (his membership during college in that Aztlan group--MENCHA or whatever the hell the name is--VERY TROUBLESOME,) but I hope he only nominates Garza (who I like) if Garza is the best man for the job and not because of his ethnicity. That kind of thing does people like me a greater disservice than not appointing Garza in the first place.
I concur. Gonzales would be a disaster. Also, during the election, President Bush stated that his standard for choosing someone as a SCOTUS nominee would be that he is an originalist, not just a good buddy. Gonzales has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he is not, in many senses, an originalist. He has also made very clear that border security is not a priority for him, sadly reflecting the attitude of many in this administration. I have no doubt that should he be elevated to SCOTUS his membership or association with MECHA would color any decisions involving illegal immigration, such as eligibility of ILLEGAL non-citizens for benefits intended for tax-paying US citizens. I would hope that conservative groups would continue to make clear their displeasure with the possibility of a Gonzales nomination (not withstanding protests from the Administration to "tone down the rhetoric" and that such an occurrence would have dire consequences at the ballot box for the Republican party.
Anyone know his position on Emerson?
Did he author anything in that decision?
The key 5th circuit appeal in Emerson was heard by a three judge panel -- Garza was not on that pane. JJs. Garwood and DeMoss ruled for the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, and JJ Parker, a Clinton appointee, went the other way. Garwood wrote the opinion, Parker a dissent. (DeMoss signed Garwoods opinion).
The case was then chased to the USSC which did not grant certoriari. Dr. Emerson got a new trial, in which he was convicted.
The Fifth Circuit is on record that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (which, by the way, is entirely consistent with Miller, if you read all of Miller).
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
He did everything he could do in that circumstance.
OK, tell the truth: Dave Barry wrote that line, didn't he?
So in other words, he admitted to violating his oath. And what the hell does he mean, "forced"? Was someone holding a gun to his head?
What caliber does he carry? The Second Amendment is my litmus test.
Dunno about these days but I'm sure some military folks can tell you what Garza used in the USMC
he carried 556 in the Corps. Don't know what he carries now.
Cut your fellow jarhead a bit of slack here.
Actually, he followed judicial precedent, and made it clear that the precedent conflicts with the law.
I want to know what his stance on the Second Amendment is. Is he a strict Constructionist? "Shall no be infringed"/"Supreme law of the Land". Or is he going to be another one that won't rock the boat and will leave 22,000 unConstitutional Federal gun laws on the books? Is stare decisis and political expediency more important than basic human Rights and their protections as listed in the US Constitution?
I'd say these are rather important issues.
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.