Posted on 07/12/2005 4:59:39 AM PDT by rhema
I don't want to tick off the president of the United States, but I think nominating Alberto Gonzales to be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court would be like throwing a party to which few people will come. And, loving this president as I do, I feel it is a duty to tell him so.
It is not that the attorney general would not be confirmed, he would. But then so will any nominee the president sends no matter how many millions are spent.
Once, two swords of Damocles hung over a high court nominee's head — the filibuster and, more commonly, rejection by the Senate. Now, a sword hangs over the filibuster's abuse — Majority Leader Bill Frist's "constitutional option."
Mostly, Republican presidents have had to worry about a Democrat majority thwarting their Supreme Court nominations — but not now. The elder President Bush came close to losing on Clarence Thomas, the immensely popular Ronald Reagan had two losses (Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg), and a Democrat-controlled Senate rejected two of President Nixon's nominations (G. Harrold CarswellandClement Haynsworth).
There is, however, little serious talk of "confirmability" these days. Mostly, the talk is about judicial confirmations war, for its own lucrative sake. Why else would highly paid liberal lobbyists like Ralph Neas love it so?
The reason that confirmability is not much discussed is that this president has what Republican predecessors have not often had — a Republican-controlled Senate, plus 55 Republican senators and several Democrats running for re-election in Red States.
So what then is the problem of Alberto Gonzales that a Hispanic name and a bootstrap story will not solve? There are two.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Not nominating a true conservative would be disaterous for 2008. It will fracture and alarm the base. One of the calls to get out the vote was Supreme Court nominees. If he drops that ball a lot of his base will stay home, and it would take much to get the democrat's latest pet fish elected.
The only redeeming value of nominating Gonzales is an easy confirmation.
Given that Pres. Bush has been to date a man of his word, then perhaps he knows things about his friend that we don't know. Perhaps he knows him to be a covert constructionist who's gone along to get along while serving in lower courts.
Perhaps. But then (IMO) Gonzales would have to have acted unfaithfully to constructionist principle in this case. Judge Owen agrees with my point of view, FWIW.
http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/tx/2000_6txsc.html
TX Supreme Court 00-0224
Gonzales Concurring Opinion
Enoch & Baker Concurring Opinion
Abbott Dissenting Opinion
Hecht Dissenting Opinion
Owen Dissenting Opinion
I've been told that Gonzalez in those cases was in inferior courts and did not have the authority to rule on anything other than the law before him....not on the US Constitution.
Is that correct?
President Bush didnt listen when he was warned about Spectre, I doubt he listens now.
The list of links that I posted isn't a "those cases," but is the entire opinion of one case (FWIW).
That case was in was the Texas Supreme Court. The subject at hand was interpretation of a Texas statute. There was no question the statute was going to stand, that is, there was no argument that the statute should be thrown out as against either the US or Texas Constitutions.
My point is that Gonzales did not act in a way that was faithful to legislative intent. A constructionist would faithfully construe any superior authority, be it statute or constitution.
Do you think that a Gonzales nomination (and I do believe he will name Gonzales) will so split the GOP that it will insure a third party in 2008, which will guarantee the return of the Clintons?
With the Clinton threat in mind it may be just the thing he intends because he figures many will not desert the party and that completes the "fix" to put the Dems in no matter whom they nominate.
Bush doesn't listen. Did he care when the base got worked up in a frenzy over illegal immigration? Nope. He never promised to close the borders, though. He DID promise to appoint justices in the vein of scalia and thomas. If he goes against this, and nominates Alberto "La Raza" Gonzales, I will start referring to Bush as a liar.
It is important to appreciate that the Legislature adopted a statutory scheme that subordinates parental rights in the case of a mature and sufficiently well informed minor, even if the minor has an ideal relationship with her parents, and even if notifying the parents would not only not place the minor in emotional or physical danger, but may in fact be in her best interest. While the ramifications of such a law and the results of the Court's decision here may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the Legislature. Justice Hecht charges that our decision demonstrates the Court's determination to construe the Parental Notification Act as the Court believes the Act should be construed and not as the Legislature intended. See ___ S.W.3d at ___ (Hecht, J., dissenting). I respectfully disagree. This decision demonstrates the Court's determination to see to it that we discharge our responsibilities as judges, and that personal ideology is subordinated to the public will that is reflected in the words of the Parental Notification Act, including the provisions allowing a judicial bypass.Because the majority opinion correctly applies the Act as written to the facts in this record, I concur.
___________________
Alberto R. Gonzales
Justice
(emphasis mine)
...without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the Legislature.
Yet he does precisely that by taking the most subjective aspect of the statute - "mature and sufficiently well informed minor" - and avails himself of the opportunity to what has all the appearance of an imposition of a "moral view" - in this case, costing a life. I'm sure he doesn't give a damn about that, though.
I really appreciate your research and posting of that excerpt from Gonzalez.
I hear him saying in it that he will apply the letter of the law in the Texas parental non-notification law.
It leaves open for me the possibility that he will apply the letter of the law elsewhere. Obviously, as a state court judge he had no authority to rule on the constitutionality of abortion.
I don't know if he had the authority to rule on whether the law violated the Texas constitution.
In the world of judges, we could do far, far, far worse than Gonzalez.
But, I want the best.
It is important to appreciate that the Legislature adopted a statutory scheme that subordinates parental rights in the case of a mature and sufficiently well informed minor, even if the minor has an ideal relationship with her parents, and even if notifying the parents would not only not place the minor in emotional or physical danger, but may in fact be in her best interest.
Why isn't Andrew Napolitano a SCOTUS candidate? He does not even appear on the Freeper poll!!
And perhaps if I leave a suitcase full of money in Haarlem, leprechauns will ward of any theives with the magical horn of a unicorn!
Xzins, if you want to be terminally naive, trust Gonzalez when he says he is not a candidate. Don't say such ridiculous things, like suggesting a closet conservative in Texas, just waiting to make it to the USSC before he turns right. Don't forget that even while in the white house, he supported affirmative action, radical multiculture language policy, stare decisis on Roe-v-Wade, and failed to oppose government-ordered land seizures.
They actually have a number of the same concerns as members here on FR... immigration, trade deficit, protectionism, homeland security, etc. What is an interesting question is can conservatives and liberals with a common agenda come together? Its highly doubtful, but disdain for the two party system in the left is about as severe as it is on the right.Seems to me that today's divide is, in large part, between the pre-9/11 ideology and the post-9/11 ideology. Neither party is really addressing this. Democrats are largely ignoring it to grandstand as anti-war types, and Republicans largely only pay it lip service.
Ten years ago I would argue against people who said there's no difference between the parties. Now I find myself with almost nothing left to counter that charge. I don't think I'm alone in this, either.
An inferior court can always rule that something is unconstitutional. It's just that if a higher court has addressed the issue, that judge knows he will be overruled, and judges hate to be overruled... and taxpayers hate to waste money on quixotic legal challenges. Did you see the Florida Supreme Court get in trouble when they ignored a 9-0 USSC ruling? Or how about that judge in California who declared gay marriage legal? Or how about the judges who legalized sodomy on that case's way to the USSC?
Secondly, Owens makes the superior argument. Gonzalez claims he would have to read into the law something that wasn't there, violating his principals on judicial activism. He's a lying scumbag, and yes, I hate judges like him who merely search for the best rationale to rule the way they want to.
True: there was some ambiguity in the Texas law. But he's insisting that in the face of ambiguity, the default position had to be to allow the abortion. One could argue that in a criminal case, a defendant cannot be convicted if he does not know for certai that his actions are illegal.
But that's not what happened here. Just the opposite: The Texas legislature banned giving abortions to minors without parental consent. To meet the preposterous right-to-kill standards of the Supreme Court, they included the ability of a judge to void the law when it conflicted with Supreme Court precedent. There is no reason to suppose that the law should be voided, as Gonzalez suggests, if a baby-murderer can find some ambiguity. At best, the court can presume the rights of the parents to know what their child is doing. At worst, the court can look to legislative intent.
There is no need to argue over what the legislative intent was: the legislature denounced his ruling and angrily rewrote the law to clarify the matter. Thank God there had not been an intervening election bringing in a Democratic governor.
Legislation is a contract between a people and their government. Judges must consider the words of the laws, and what they were understood to mean. That's originalism. Judge Gonzalez is a wicked man for playing "gotcha" with the people of Texas who were trying to save lives.
I think my post #13 pretty well sums it up.
We either want a judge who goes by the law as he has it in front of him, or we want a judge that makes it up as he goes along.
I want the best originalist judge possible. Gonzalez is not that. But, I'd trade Gonzalez for Souter in a heartbeat.
Would you trade Gonzales for Ginsberg?
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.