Posted on 07/10/2005 8:01:30 PM PDT by hispanarepublicana
President Bush will nominate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to be chief justice of the Supreme Court after William Rehnquist joins Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and announces his retirement, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol predicted on Sunday.
"The chief justice will step down this week," Kristol, who accurately forecast last month that O'Connor would be the first to go, told "Fox News Sunday."
"The president is planning to announce two nominations for those vacancies before he leaves for Crawford at the end of the month," he predicted. "I've been told that the White House has told certain people to keep their calendars clear for July 26 and 27." Kristol said sources "close to the White House and at the Justice Department" have told him that "the president wants to nominate Attorney General Gonzales to be chief justice."
The well-connected commentator predicted that tapping a moderate like Gonzales to head the court would "demoralize" Bush's conservative base, which has waged a 30-year battle to change the ideological balance of the high court.
"I think if the president nominates Gonzales, it will be disastrous for the Republican Party," Kristol said. "It will have a bad effect on the Bush administration for the rest of its term."
He contended that a Gonzales nomination would be "the equivalent of the [1990] budget deal," when Bush's father reneged on his promise not to raise taxes.
“Alberto Gonzales served with distinction on the board of directors of one of NCLR’s oldest and most respected affiliates, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans (AAMA) in Houston, Texas. Moreover, during his tenure as White House Counsel, he has been one of the most accessible members of the White House staff to NCLR and other Hispanic organizations,” added Murguia.
That is a pretty thin reed on which to build a case against Judge Gonzales, but maybe it is enough. I would like to know more about the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans before concluding that someone who has worked for the President for many years is too liberal to support.
I would not like to be judged by every belief or position of every organization I have supported during my life, especially during the years when I was a starry-eyed young liberal.
First, I must relook at the record of Gonzales. If he is the moderate that everyone is claiming, then I'll not be demoralized. I will be lost to the Republican Party.
The argument against Gonzales that I heard had something to do with a bad decision he supported in an abortion case.
Anyone know what it was?
I think Kristol is moderate....recall his slathering for McCainiac.
I agree on Gonzalez....yuck
I am not for racial, religious or ethnic litmus test period. I loathe it. It's reeks of quota pandering.
Simply pick the best and most conservative regardless.
If that meant all old white Southerners then so be it.
It doesn't btw but we have to get off this "hispanic seat", "black seat", "woman's seat".....that identity crap is just like the Left.
I know...I'm a broken record on this stuff.
Bill Kristol said in a column the week BEFORE O'Connor retired that it would be O'Connor, Not Rehnquist, that would retire.
He was right about that, so I bet he is right about Gonzales. It sounds just like something Bush would do. Gonzales was his counsel as Governor of Texas (my state), appointed him as secretary of State of Tx, appointed him as a Texas Supreme Court Justice, brought him to Washington to be his White House Counsel, appointed him as Attorney General of the United States.
President Bush will now put the icing on the cake and nominate him as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Kristol is right, so go ahead and scream, cry and throw a fit now and get it out of your systems. It's gonna happen, sadly. We are going to get screwed one more time, as usual.
Bush promised Scalia-like originalists. He won't have an ounce of credibility left if he breaks that promise.
Anti-private property rights: FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000)
Gonzales joined a 6-3 ruling by Justice Baker that struck down a state law that allowed certain private landowners to exempt themselves from municipal water-quality and other environmental ordinances by creating their own "water quality protection zones."
Abortion rights:
In re Jane Doe 1(II), 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000) Joined with the majority in making a liberal interpretation of a Texas law requires minors who seek an abortion to notify their parents.
Here is a really weird one ...
Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 996 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. 1999) Gonzales wrote a 7-2 opinion that held that an innocent spouse could recover insurance proceeds when her co-insured spouse intentionally set fire to their insured home.
Apparently, you haven't been paying attention. Gonzales and his fellow judges -- criticized by a true conservative Priscilla Owens -- voted to overturn a lower court ruling giving a minor a judicial bypass and THEN lowered the standard for getting a judicial bypass.
Gonzales has openly stated that Roe is settled law and shouldn't be overturned.
I think a lot of folks are going over the top about this. Here are some of my random thoughts...
First I doubt Bush will appoint him. Just my gut feeling, but I don't think he would have named him AG if he thought he might be nominating him to an early opening in the court.
If he is appointed he will be confirmed easily. Even if every democrat voted against him (which they won't since they know he is about as moderate as they will get from Bush), can you really name six Republican senators who would vote against him? I can't think of one.
Would Gonzales be another Scalia? No. Would he be another Souter? No. He would be a fairly conservatve justice but not a strict constructionist. In other words pretty much like Rehnquist. If he were named Cheif Justice and O'Connor is replaced by someone like Garza, Luttig, McConnell or Roberts it would still be a big shift toward constitutional law. A lot of the decisions that have gone against us 5-4 would now go our way.
For those "I'm giving up on Bush" people, HE ISN"T RUNNING AGAIN. So what are you going to do, not support him on issues where you think he is right? In any case, Bush will do what he thinks is right, regardless of what you think. Clearly a conservative court is important to him, and if he appoints Gonazales it's because he thinks he would be a conservative justice. He may be wrong, butI haven't heard much of anything concrete to show that he wouldn't be. So get a grip. Gonzales isn't ideal, but he wouldn't be the end of the world either.
You are getting him mixed up with Cruz Bustamante, who ran against Ahnold.
As I heard it the law was vague about what the standard was. Some justices wanted to impose a tighter standard that was not in the wording of the law. He voted against doing so, since that would be legislating from the bench and suggested the legislature should clarify it, not the court. If that is what actually happened, then it hardly makes him pro-abortion.
No, Gonzales and his fellow judges lowered the standard to get a judicial bypass by overturning a lower court ruling prohibiting to the minor that brought the suit and forced the legislature to rewrite the law to make a judicial bypass easier to get.
Conservative Justice Priscilla Owens dissented vigorously, calling the majority in this case "irresponsible."
Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a red flag.
Gonzales can be trusted. Folks need to take a chill pill. The President knows him well. He is no Souter.
Gonzales might believe that "the law is the law" but that says nothing about whether or not abortion is a right that's included in the constitution. It simply isn't there. It is constitutional for states and/or the US legislature to enact laws regarding abortion. Once those laws are enacted, then "the law is the law."
If that's what he meant, then I support him. If he meant that a minor has some kind of constitutional right not to notify her parents about an abortion, then he's whacked out!
"You are getting him mixed up with Cruz Bustamante, who ran against Ahnold."
Ah!
Fair enough, but I have yet to hear Alberto Gonzalez explain his involvement in that organization.
I'm surprised at varioius reactions. The question and equation overall is simple.
Is Gonzales more conservative than O'Connor?
It's a simple question. Yes or no. If yes, his addition to the court is a victory. Period. Discussion ended.
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.