Posted on 07/01/2022 7:09:20 AM PDT by DoodleBob
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (R) said the conservative members of the Supreme Court may look to review other current federally protected rights, such as access to contraception and same-sex relations, following the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade
Gonzales, who led the Justice Department under former President George W. Bush, told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on Tuesday that Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe, specifically emphasizes that the court’s decision should not be taken to put other rights at risk.
But Gonzales said the risk to other cases based on the right to privacy is something he would be concerned about.
...
Gonzales said the best way to protect abortion rights is to push for a constitutional amendment at both the federal and state level or a federal law.
He said his philosophy is similar to that of Chief Justice John Roberts in terms of change. Roberts voted to uphold the Mississippi law that bans abortion at 15 weeks being considered in the Dobbs case but did not go as far as his conservative colleagues in voting to overturn Roe.(emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Alberto Gonzalez, the Harriet Miers of Attorney Generals.
Thats another MOFO who’s elevators didnt go all the way up and down.
It is the defeat of the pillar the US Supreme court has used to unlawfully defeat state laws; the penumbras and emanations , that will no longer be in effect. Federal rights created by a court aren’t rights at all. Humans have inalienable rights granted by God. The job of governments is to protect all of those rights and preventing wrongs.
Yea, the Bushes suck.
There's no doubt in my mind that this guy would have been a slave master in the 1850s ... or would have been arguing the winning side in the Dred Scott case.
Each case was well decided based on the Constitution and the law, but the actual legal arguments are almost never examined. They are all characterized as the Court being willful, "activist," or imposing its own judgment. Each decision is in fact based on closely argued readings of plain text and previous precedent in EPA.
I listened to Market Watch yesterday afternoon (the voice of globalism). Discussing the EPA decision, they had some law professor decrying with horror the possibility that SCOTUS might be reviving the pre-New Deal court-packing delegation doctrine, i.e., that there are limits to how much policy making power agencies have without clear legal authorization.
The most radical parts of both Dobbs and Bruen was the use of historical analysis: the SCOTUS is strongly suggesting that the only appropriate standard of Constitutional review is what would have been acceptable in the 19 century or pre-New Deal court. I can only hope this means a revival of the Commerce Clause as a restriction of Congressional authority. Maybe even a revival of Lochner.
The Left made it possible for everyone to accept that SCOTUS might create earthquakes in settled law: now it's biting them in the butt as SCOTUS seeks to restore a genuine interpretation of the Constitution and to strip away the unlawful accretion of power by Fedzilla and the states.
Missing the point (as usual) and the MSM just parrots the bit.
RvW was bad law because it inferred a right — basically made it up. If something is not even alleged to in the Const as a right, it ain’t. That does not mean that congress cannot pass a law creating such.
But, in the RvW case a right was made up out of thin air and it was so politically incorrect to question it millions were murdered.
If the other issues do not depend upon a right made up as coming from the Const, then they will be OK. If there is a law affirming such right, they are bullet proof from the SCOTUS.
No more Bushes, no more Clintons, ever.
GW and Carter having institutes or “brain tanks” is a rather
disconcerting thing.
Neither of them has a freaking clue.
“Hey lets start an institute. There are lots of people out
there who need confusing.”
the LEFT is arguing there is a God given right to murder your baby
it just aint so
Boom. You nailed it 100%.
Now to get rid of Wickard v filburn
Democrats passed socially-altering laws in places where they have a majority and then used the courts to nationalize those policies. The only thing being revisited is the tyranny of the minority on the majority. What isn’t a federal issue is being returned to localities where it belongs.
The MSM seems to forget that the Demonrat party supported SC decisions that IGNORED rights enumerated in the Constitution.
Roe totally disregarded this right, just as the S C decision supporting slavery disregarded the “right to liberty”.
Today, the current crop of DEMONrats seem hell bent on urging people who are
MISERABLE to disregard and destroy their opponents “right to happiness”.
ALL Bush League Republicans suck, including those still in office, like Grahamnesty, Tillis, Cornyn, Hoeven and Rubio who are still plotting to assist the Democrats to a permanent majority with amnesty for illegal aliens.
In essence, the Left seems to support the pursuit of MISERY, not “happiness”.
Yeah, I don’t think please clap Jeb said anything either.
It’s kind of a chicken and the egg thing. Which came first?
Were they idiots before they backed the One World Order,
or did they become idiots at the moment they backed it?
To my way of thinking, they are of course choosing to back
something we know will be very bad, but you’d have to be
an idiot not to see the pitfalls that come along with this
sort of thing.
These are the same folks who thought letting China
manufacture everything we need, would be a great idea.
They may see the downside up front, but they never quite
make the connection to how bad it really will be.
Bring me to the Vomittorium because I want to PUKE.
Bush and all his minions exposed. The light has shined on the Bush Cockroaches.
Especially Roberts. Dirt bag freak show.
Roberts acts like he’s in the closet and someone knows about it.
Blackmail and extortion.
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.