And he had a less-than-pro-life record on the Texas Supreme Court.
Wrong. Here are the facts from one of my previous posts:
It was one case that caused this controversy. In his opinion on that case, he stated several things...
"…the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the Legislature…. Legislative intent is the polestar of statutory construction. Our role as judges requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we might like to see enacted, and instead do our best (my emphasis) to discern what the Legislature actually intended." "While the ramifications of such a law 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."As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent’s right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute’s legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. 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."
"As a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect and guide their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the legislature has elected not to do so."
When he served as a Texas Supreme Court Justice, he ruled on just ten cases involving a state law that requires teens either to notify their parents before having an abortion or establish before a court that they are mature enough to be granted a judicial bypass. In eight of those cases, he ruled against the teens and did so even though the cases involved situations where the teen feared physical abuse from a parent.
He also got alot of flack for saying he would support Roe v Wade as AG. Well...since Roe v Wade IS THE LAW, he is only upholding the current law, that is his job. That DOES NOT mean he is pro-abortion. On the contrary, his opinions indicate that these cases troubled him deeply and he threw the ball back at the Legislature to correct the flawed law. The legislature came back the following session and did set a higher standard. Gonzales is a strict constructionist, and proved it in this case.
Now...with that being said, I don't believe Gonzales is the best candidate as:
A Justice Gonzales would have to recuse himself from cases dealing with a wide range of issues — from the Patriot Act to partial-birth abortion — because of his high-level service in the Bush administration.Federal law is clear: No federal judge, including any Supreme Court justice, may participate in a case if he "has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." In addition, justices are to recuse themselves "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Given that Gonzales was Bush's White House counsel for the entirety of his first term, and is now attorney general, that means he will have to decline to participate in a lot of important cases.
The administration's legal positions could therefore lose ground precisely because one of their architects would be on the Court.