Bush aide likely high court nominee

LOS ANGELES TIMES ^ | 1/31/02 | DAVID G. SAVAGE

[Afronaut]

WASHINGTON -- White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the soft- spoken son of migrant farm workers, has emerged as the overwhelming favorite for a Supreme Court nomination in the months ahead, a move that would give President Bush a historic and politically powerful chance to name the first Latino to the nation's highest court.

[dirtboy]

Roe v. Wade is not a law - it is a ruling that unconstitutionally disallowed the states from enacting laws to restrict or eliminate the murder of human beings who still reside in the womb. It doesn't take a judicial activist to overturn a demented ruling that possessed not a shred of constitutional foundation - a ruling which itself was solely based upon the PERSONAL VIEWS of the judicial activists who infested the Supreme Court at the time.

See my post #90, it partially addresses this. However, do you wish to counter judicial activism by personal views with judicial activism by personal views? IMO, simply emplacing a strict constructionist would eventually lead to a decision or, more likely, series of decisions that eviscerate Roe v. Wade. That is why libs shriek like vampires on garlic bread at the notion of one being nominated to SCOTUS.

[madfly]

full text

Close Adviser

As general counsel at the state house in Austin, Gonzales advised Bush on a variety of matters, including the state’s policy on executions.
     But he also helped get Bush excused from jury duty in 1996 — a matter that many media observers suggested would have necessitated that Bush disclose his 1976 arrest for drunk driving, which became public knowledge in the last week of the presidential campaign.
     As secretary of state, Mr. Gonzales served as the chief election official in Texas, and helped conduct the state’s relations with Mexico.
     Gonzales is also breaking ground as the first hispanic-American to serve in his position at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
     “People that work hard and make the right decisions in life can achieve anything they want in America,” said Bush.

Eight Is Enough

Gonzales was born in San Antonio, Texas, but grew up in Houston, as one of eight siblings in a two-bedroom house.
     Upon graduation from high school in 1975, Gonzales enrolled in the U.S. Air Force Academy , but left two years later.
     “I wanted to be a pilot, but after being in the Academy for two years, I changed my career goals and decided I wanted to be a lawyer,” Gonzales has said.
     He transferred to Rice University in Houston, receiving his degree in 1979, and then continued on to Harvard University Law School, getting his J.D. in 1982.
     Gonzales then moved back to private law practice in Houston, making partner in the firm Vinson & Elkins, where he worked from 1982 until 1995.
     Bush, beginning his first term as governor, then drafted Gonzales to be general counsel in 1995. Two years later he appointed him to the Secretary of State position, followed by an appointment to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999.
     In November 2000, Gonzales was re-elected to the Texas high court, running unopposed for his seat.

Voice of Moderation?

In his 23-month stint as a state Supreme Court justice, Gonzales was considered by some observers to represent a moderating influence on a generally conservative bench.
     Other saw Gonzales as more readily fitting into the conservative faction on the court, especially on business-related cases. Earlier in 2000, Gonzales sided with the majority as the Texas high court overturned a lower-court ruling allowing class-action lawsuits by car owners against the Ford Motor Co. to proceed.
     However, some conservative Republicans are already sounding alarms about the appointment of Gonzales, saying his social views are too permissive.
     For instance, Gonzales sided with the majority in a high court decision allowing some minors to have abortions without notifying their parents.
     “Gonzales is on the Texas Supreme Court and there he has voted against even parental notification for minors who are having abortions,” said conservative leader Gary Bauer, head of the Family Research Council, in a recent memo. “The White House Counsel position often has major influence on [U.S. Supreme Court] appointments. Clearly we are going to have to encourage the new administration to stick to the pro-life position it outlined in the campaign.”
     But in this and other matters, Gonzales does not sound like an official who takes his duties lightly.
     “The public may be aware of our rulings on parental notification,” Gonzales told the Houston Chronicle earlier this year. “But they don’t pay that much attention otherwise. They don’t know how much influence the court has on their daily lives.”

[Sabertooth]

There's no way to know, since the Texas Supreme Court doesn't generally rule on questions regarding the US Constitution.

Sure we can know. Stare decisis comes into play all the time, not just where the US Constitution is involved.

But jurists give heavy weight to settled law, which they must.

"Heavy," or "absolute?"

Every case can't be a case of first impression, and I don't think Marbury v. Madison is likely to be overturned, despite its judicial activist ruling.

Then, by this principle, what you end up with are three branches of government, ever winking and nudging, as they leverage their way to ever more federal power. Power once ceded to the FedGov is inviolate.

That's the danger of allowing stare decisis to trump the Constitution...
and that is a doctrine not found in the Constitution.

[Tribune7]

The "true believers" might think that,

If the GOP every goes pro-choice it its cooked. If the pro-lifers ever leave the GOP it is cooked. If the RINOs leave -- and they actually are, the country club set now votes Democratic -- it will hurt but the party will survive.

I can see it now. The RINOs leave and start their own website "Moderate Republic"

[Tribune7]

Roe v. Wade is not a law

Great point.

[Sabertooth]

"Liberal constructionist" is a contradiction in terms, AP. If Gonzales makes his decision based on the plain writing of the Constitution, then he's a strict constructionist - liberal vs. conservative labels do not apply. His personal views on any issue become unimportant, so long as he applies the law fairly and in an unbiased fashion.

So-called conservatives must understand that what we need in the federal judiciary are judges who rule based on the law - not those who make it themselves. That goes for judicial activism of the conservative stripe as well as liberal.

How should we view judges who will let previous, activist bench legislation (a redundancy, I know) stand, because it is "settled law?"

Is it "activist" to throw out activist ruliings?

[RnMomof7]

**If Bush names Gonzales to replace ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a prospect that is becoming more likely, conservatives worry that the president will shift the high court to the left, not the right, on key issues such as affirmative action and abortion. **


Why am I not surprised

[Dog Gone]

There's a lot not found in the Constitution, but stare decisis preceded the writing of the Constitution, and its existence was no secret. Without the concept, there would be no such thing as settled law, and no need for the court to issue an opinion explaining its ruling. It could simply rule for the plaintiff or defendant, and go to lunch.

The Supreme Court rarely reverses itself, but it obviously has done so in the past. In those cases, stare decisis clearly was not absolute. Nor should it be. But it's not something which is done flippantly, either.

[Sabertooth]

If a law is wrong, it should be struck down.

Can you clarify? By "wrong," do you mean unconstitutional, or immoral by some other standard?

[dirtboy]

Is it "activist" to throw out activist ruliings?

Great question, and IMO the answer is "it depends on how you do it." Roe v. Wade, for example, was engineered by William O. Douglass to give SCOTUS a chance to rule on abortion. I would hope that a strict constructionist would not attempt something similar, but would wait for a state to pass a law banning or severely restricting abortion, and continue to wait as the rulings at the appellate level bring the case to SCOTUS, and then would apply sound Constitutional reasoning to the case, in a way that acknowledges the precedent of Roe but also takes a big honkin' bite out of Roe, which will then slowly bleed to death as states realize they are no longer held in its shackles. Overturning judicial precedents, even bad ones, is something that should be done carefully, as overstepping bounds in that department can in turn allow libs to do the same against conservative, Constitutional decisions.

[RnMomof7]

When is affirmative action not affirmative action?



When a Republican does it to construct a big Tent

[TLBSHOW]

Ban abortion man PB abortion or lose the religious right

[dirtboy]

Is it "activist" to throw out activist ruliings?

And one more point here. Rather than seek to overturn Roe v. Wade at the judicial level, a better approach is to take it on at the Congressional level by passing a law saying that the federal government does not have the power to restrict state laws regarding abortion. This would force SCOTUS's hand on the matter, and give a strict constructionist a great way to step around the Roe v. Wade precedent - because he could simply find that Congress was acting within its power to restrain the powers of the federal government, rather than expanding them.

[deport]

Obviously there is only one thing to be said, Tancredo for President 2004.

---

Yep ol' Tan and his couple of supporters need to get cranking as he's got some 12 months or so before the primaries kick off. Or is he going to hijack some 3rd party for his run?

[mwl1]

**If Bush names Gonzales to replace ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a prospect that is becoming more likely, conservatives worry that the president will shift the high court to the left, not the right, on key issues such as affirmative action and abortion. **

This is false, deliberate, biased media spin to create trouble for the likely Gonzales appointment. The media would like nothing more for the president to have trouble with his first appointment to the Supreme Court. They are seeking to create a coalition of hatred for Gonzales from the left and the far right.

[NittanyLion]

How should we view judges who will let previous, activist bench legislation (a redundancy, I know) stand, because it is "settled law?" Is it "activist" to throw out activist ruliings?

IMO, a SCOTUS justice can use other cases for guidance, but must give the most weight to their reading of the Constitution. So if a case came up that had already been decided (let's say Roe v Wade) by a prior court - and the current court felt a plain reading of the Constitution does not agree with the ruling - the strict constructionist method would be to overturn the previous ruling.

FWIW, I also believe a court should give greater weight to statute than prior rulings, but of course less weight than the Constitution is accorded.

[deport]

Q: Has he ever voted to overturn a law? Hmmm.......?

---

Has he been asked to rule on a law regarding the overturning? Hmmmmmm?

[Sabertooth]

There's a lot not found in the Constitution, but stare decisis preceded the writing of the Constitution, and its existence was no secret. Without the concept, there would be no such thing as settled law, and no need for the court to issue an opinion explaining its ruling. It could simply rule for the plaintiff or defendant, and go to lunch.

Child sacrifice and temple prostitution preceded the Constitution, as did the Tea Tax. So what?

The concept of "settled law" is useful, but should not be preemminent over the concept of Constitutional law. There is a reason the founders chose to have a Constitution in writing: so that the central government couldn't ignore it as easily as it did under the unritten constitution of the English Crown.

The Supreme Court rarely reverses itself, but it obviously has done so in the past. In those cases, stare decisis clearly was not absolute. Nor should it be. But it's not something which is done flippantly, either.

I'm not sure I think flippancy is the issue, it's frequency.

Stare decisis ought to be cast by the wayside as frequently as unconstitutional rulings are made by judicial activists. I don't care if it's done so with flippancy or gravity.

Anything short of that will amount to eventual surrender in a war of attrition with the bench legislators.

Either we have a Separation of Powers, or we don't.

[dirtboy]

IMO, a SCOTUS justice can use other cases for guidance, but must give the most weight to their reading of the Constitution. So if a case came up that had already been decided (let's say Roe v Wade) by a prior court - and the current court felt a plain reading of the Constitution does not agree with the ruling - the strict constructionist method would be to overturn the previous ruling.

What's ironic about some of the conservative posters on this thread, complaining about a single constructionist ruling by Gonzales, is that the left is absolutely terrified of the concept of strict constructionism. So these few posters are playing into their hands by demanding that Gonzales states his personal views on issues, which will give the libs ammo to shoot at him.

[RnMomof7]

This is false, deliberate, biased media spin to create trouble for the likely Gonzales appointment.

Nope..you guys just refuse to see the truth...look left and you will see the" New World Order" , no border president...ya need a Mexico , open border friendly court for when the NWO FINALLY makes its way there...