[Lancelot Jones]

"The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the legislature," Gonzales wrote. In the same passage he concluded: "Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

Alberto Gonzales crafted a decision based on the letter of the statute, as written by the Texas legislature.

That does not make him a bad Judge, it makes him a great Judge.

Owens and the dissenters wanted to render a decision based on verbiage which was not included in the statute by the legislators, but rather on how they "felt" about the subject; when liberal Judges engage in such actions, conservatives call it judicial activism.

We should call it the same thing when conservative Judges engage in it.

If the language of the Texas Parental Notification Law is not crafted to suit the wishes of the more conservative segments of Texas conservatives, they need to urge their legislators to change the law. What they should not be doing is demanding judicial activism, or legislation from the bench.

Beauseant!

[inquest]

Owens and the dissenters wanted to render a decision based on verbiage which was not included in the statute by the legislators, but rather on how they "felt" about the subject

I'd like to see your quote from Owens' opinion in that case which showed that her dissent was based on how she "felt".

The fact is, it was the majority who added language to the statute that wasn't there. The statute required that the lower court grant the waiver if it finds that the girl has met certain conditions. It did not require the court to grant the waiver if it fails to specifically state that she has not met these conditions. And as Owens stated in her dissent, it goes against judicial precedent to second-guess factual findings of lower courts unless those findings are irreconcilable with the data set forth in the record.

Remember: The mere fact that a judge says that he's engaging in strict constructionism, and accuses his dissenting colleagues of judicial activism, doesn't mean that that's an accurate portrayal of what happened.