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.

[RnMomof7]

Your interpretation of the New World Order is clearly at odds with what President Bush has in mind. Our national soveigrnty is not going to be compromised by this President.

Really?? So why do you not teach us what the Bush dad and son mean by it ? (seeing he talked of it during the NATFA ceremony and he wants to send Social Security money to Mexico..and enlarge free trade to S.America, and make the migration north of the Mexicans legal..YOU TELL ME what He means)

[deport]

Farah never lets the truth get in the way of one his rants.

---

But it's interesting to watch the so called conservatives use the lies to smear and spread misinformation.... They claim to abhor it when done by others of different political persuasions but it's okay for them to do it. hyprocrites.......

[rwfromkansas]

Well, he was just following a Constitutional state law then. This attack on his abortion record is therefore unjust.

You have convinced me.

I am curious about your Owen statement though. Are you saying Owen is more conservative or liberal than Gonzalez?

[Dog Gone]

One-issue voters may call themselves conservatives, but they're really just one-issue voters. They are useful to conservatives when they happen to cast a vote for a candidate who holds other conservative views, but they are not reliable voters.

Mostly they go around threatening to withhold their votes, especially concentrating on candidates who'd they'd never vote for anyway.

[rwfromkansas]

Think about it then.......we would get 2 new appointments if Rehnquist and O'Conner retire. In addition to that, we would get a new C Justice with Scalia. What a potential to change the makeup of the court!

[Austin Willard Wright]

If he is for quotas, he does not deserve to be called a conservative. Quotas represent a doctrine of repugnant legalized racism. I am stunned that any conservative would defend this atrocious doctrine.

[rwfromkansas]

Dog Gone has explained the vote. There was nothing sinister about it. I thought there was at first, but there isn't. He wasn't voting against the parental notification law; he agreed that the minor in question may possibly have fit an exception that the state law allowed as written.

[rwfromkansas]

BTW, I take it Texas still has the law, doesn't it? If so, how on Earth could those that claim he ruled against the law be right? That is good ammo for our side if accurate.

BTW, I got screwed up in my past messgae thinking you said the article WAS NOT BS. That is why I wrote to you like you were an anti-Bushie...lol.

[rwfromkansas]

I am not sure what he thinks about quotas. The article I saw the other day that mentioned him indicated he wants Bush to stay out of the Michigan case (BUT NOT GO TO THE SCOTUS IN SUPPORT OF QUOTAS....a definite positive sign) for political reasons. I disagree with him, but understand his political calculation here. I prefer Ted Olson on this though; he is pushing to oppose it.

[Dog Gone]

I am curious about your Owen statement though. Are you saying Owen is more conservative or liberal than Gonzalez?

Well, that's an interesting question. Owen is certainly portrayed as being more conservative, especially by her opponents. This very same parental notification case came up in the arguments against her in the Senate Judiciary hearing, because she and Gonzalez were on different sides.

But it's clear that nobody making the arguments had actually read the whole case. There were separate dissenting opinions in the case, and Owen's dissent centered on her contention that the trial court should have been given leeway to make the determination of fact in the first place.

Her dissenting vote in this case was instead construed by leftwingers as, of all things, "Judicial Activism". She was accused of wanting to impose her views against abortion despite what the Texas law said. In fact, she said no such thing.

I think she and Gonzales are both equally fine judges, and I don't know which is more conservative. You certainly can't make the determination based on how they voted in that Texas case.

[rwfromkansas]

What I have heard is that Gonzalez and the political advisors want Bush to just keep his mouth shut on this.....not take a stand either for or against AA...for political reasons. I would prefer to see Gonzalez out championing the anti-AA line for the Michigan case of course, but am pleased he is not out urging Bush to fight FOR AA. If he did that, THEN I would be worried......BIGTIME. But urging a neutral position is not something that concerns me since it does not show Gonzalez actually supports AA.

[deport]

Correct... if you want to read his opinion here is a link...

• Justice Gonzales's opinion

[Lurking Libertarian]

He voted against parental notification! I am not an abortion-only voter, but if he voted agains that, WHY THE HELL IS HE EVEN BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE POSITION????? He would not vote to allow PBA to be banned even!

He did not vote against parental notification. The Texas legislature passed a law requiring parental notification unless the minor seeking an abortion could prove one of 3 exceptions. In several cases, he voted that the minor had not proven any of the exceptions; in one case, he voted that the minor had proven one of the three. He said in his opinion that opposition to abortion was not a ground to disregard what the legislature had written.

[mwl1]

This scenario, plus a second Bush term when one or more the liberals on the bench will resign or die, is the ultimate leftist nightmare. It's not just Rehnquist and O'Connor; the left expects this between now and the 2004 election.

It's what happens beyond 2004 that truly frightens them.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I hope you are right. I am worried, however, that he does not seem to have a fire in his belly about this issue. Opposition to quotas is one of the defining characteristics of a conservative and most voters, black and white, are against them. A Republican can embrace affirmative action (e.g. reaching out to minorities, etc.) and still be on strong ground in terms of practical politics by drawing the line at quotas.

[rwfromkansas]

Thanks for the info.....some others have set me straight also. It makes me angry that the media would lie like that when they know he did not vote against the law itself, just believed some more evidence was needed to determine whether this girl should be required to notify her parents or not.

[rwfromkansas]

Definitely.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Again, there is a big difference between AA (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and quotas (i.e. the Michigan rules). Conservatives will be cutting their own throats if they fail to understand this difference and frame their policies accordingly.

[Lurking Libertarian]

he did not vote against the law itself, just believed some more evidence was needed to determine whether this girl should be required to notify her parents or not.

Actually, he voted that no more evidence was needed, and that the girl had in fact established that she did not need to notify her parents; he did not send the case back for further hearings. The opinion is linked in post #72.

[Austin Willard Wright]

The article's title reflects confusion about the big difference between AA and quotas. Conservaties, of all people, should understand this distinction.