Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush aide likely high court nominee
LOS ANGELES TIMES ^ | 1/31/02 | DAVID G. SAVAGE

Posted on 12/31/2002 6:39:08 AM PST by Afronaut

Edited on 07/06/2004 6:38:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: itsrinonotrhino; rhino; rhinoisananimal; supremecourt; whitehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241 next last
To: AppyPappy
Pro-choice "conservatives" are not conservatives. They are merely Party Members. Party uber alles.

Nice try, but no stogie. I could slur you the same way, Hank, by saying that pro-judicial activism "conservatives" are no conservatives at all. Reality, as usual, is far more complicated than you or I acknowledge here. You can point at the Texas case decided by Gonzales and scream that he's pro-abort - yet should he engage in judicial activism to overturn a law BASED UPON HIS PERSONAL VIEWS? That is the road to judicial tyranny, IMO.

So why don't you turn down the inane Bushbot rhetoric and back up your position with facts and reason instead of slurs and emotions.

41 posted on 12/31/2002 8:08:16 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: madfly
"Lott clouds U-M lawsuit His resignation may alter Bush stance on affirmative action"

Whatever happened to just doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do? Anybody whose convictions are modified by the rise and fall of somebody else's political star must not have had true convictions to begin with. There are many things in life worth more than political expediency.

42 posted on 12/31/2002 8:09:22 AM PST by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Still hearing crickets about his "conservatism".

yet should he engage in judicial activism to overturn a law BASED UPON HIS PERSONAL VIEWS?

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

43 posted on 12/31/2002 8:10:51 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
What's his stand on Hate Crime Laws?
What's his stand on Campaign Finance Reform?
What's his stand on Right To Work Laws?

I'm hearing crickets here. If he's going to be on the SC, we need to know these things.

No, we don't. You ask those things of candidates for the Legislative and Executive Branches, as they create laws. But since he might be a judicial nominee, I simply want to hear that he will impartially and impersonally interpret the law and rule according to the law, NOT HIS OWN PERSONAL POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES. You're succumbing to activist temptation, Hank.

44 posted on 12/31/2002 8:10:52 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
How is he a "conservative"?

He eats bran, you should try it...

45 posted on 12/31/2002 8:11:21 AM PST by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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

I'm sure there will be such information forthcoming, one way or the other, about his judicial background in Texas. Trying to make a point this early in a debate about a dearth of information is pretty asinine...

46 posted on 12/31/2002 8:11:59 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut

 

MOMENT OF TRUTH
GOP MAJORITY

END OF THE 'BULL' OR END OF THE MATADOR

Appoint strict constructionist pro-life Judges. Without Clinton slick speak of what 'is strict constructionist' is.

There is no more 'Dashhole' to blame. The buck stops with President Bush.

47 posted on 12/31/2002 8:14:20 AM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
NOT HIS OWN PERSONAL POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES.

How else will we decide whether he is a conservative? He could be a liberal constructionist for all you know. He's going to be dealing with the Constitution alone. That's not a very strict set of laws. I want to know whether he thinks the Constitution guarantees us the right to own guns. Or the right to Life. Or the right to school choice. Or the right to work. Or the right to free speech without being arrested for "hate". I don't think that is too much to ask of OUR nominee.

48 posted on 12/31/2002 8:14:44 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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

Would that be a plus or a minus in your view?

49 posted on 12/31/2002 8:15:03 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Is re-writing law to fit your agenda wrong whether or not it's a conservative or liberal judge? Yes or no?
50 posted on 12/31/2002 8:15:24 AM PST by Wait4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Trying to make a point this early in a debate about a dearth of information is pretty asinine...

Yet he has already been deemed a "conservative nominee" by some. Hmmm....

51 posted on 12/31/2002 8:15:26 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; All
I invite everyone to look at your replies. You are not interested in the facts of the ONE case that Gonzales was in conflict with pro-life opinion, which has been explained.

You also are not interested in the fact that Roe-vs. Wade cannot be overturned by judicial decree from one judge, and are also apparently unaware that even the reversal of Roe vs. Wade would not overturn abortion, but merely send the decision back to the states. While we can assume that a few states like Louisiana and Utah would outlaw abortion, most state legislatures would not do so.

So, what I see here is an attempt to both smear Alberto Gonzales either because he is Hispanic or because he is the next target in the ever shriller anti-Bush rhetoric that has become all too common on this forum.

As most all readers know, I am a Bush suporter since the primaries. Do I agree on everything? No. I really, REALLY wish we had held out for school voutures. HOWEVER, unlike some people on this forum, I do not demand that everything go my way, 100%, or I will launch into a tirade.

So, what is your point in continuing to misrepresent Gonzales and pretending that you don't understand the explanations that several people have given you? Do you simply want to trash everything Bush does? Do you harbor a grudge against Gonzales? Or are you simply in the business of causing arguments in general?

52 posted on 12/31/2002 8:15:49 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Would that be a plus or a minus in your view?

It would be irrelevant to me but it would seem to strike him off the list as a strict constructionist.

53 posted on 12/31/2002 8:16:22 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Wait4Truth
It is irrelevant to the concept of liberal vs conservative. If a law is wrong, it should be struck down.
54 posted on 12/31/2002 8:17:31 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Who decides a law is "good?" That is not the function of the Supreme Court. The function of the Supreme Court is to decide if laws are withing the framework of the Constitution. Period. "Goodness" doesn't enter into it at all.
55 posted on 12/31/2002 8:19:12 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
So, a conservative judge should feel free to re-write state law if he thinks it's wrong but a liberal should be excoriated for doing the same...nice logic.
56 posted on 12/31/2002 8:19:47 AM PST by Wait4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

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

Hank, Hank, Hank. That is the recipie for tyranny from the bench. After all, liberals have been deciding that laws were wrong for years and overturning them from the bench, in spiteful disregard for the Constitution. You would simply replace one rule of man with your own personal rule of man, instead of having to deal with the long, arduous process of changing the LAW instead of overturning it.

57 posted on 12/31/2002 8:19:55 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Who decides a law is "good?"

Appy Pappy does. Because we live in the Republic of Appy Pappy, home of the rule of men. Laws not required. Constitutions are window dressing. Emotions rule.

58 posted on 12/31/2002 8:21:07 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; Miss Marple
If he's going to be on the SC, we need to know these things.

No, we don't. His opinion on these matters is irrelevant if the justice is not trying to make new laws like the liberals ones have done.

59 posted on 12/31/2002 8:21:12 AM PST by SC Swamp Fox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I'm still waiting to hear some answers. All I get is vague innuendo. You think he is a conservatibe but you have no idea why.

Do you simply want to trash everything Bush does? Do you harbor a grudge against Gonzales?

How is he a conservative again? Does he support gun rights? Does he support School Choice? These are all Constitutional issues. Where does he stand?

Why is it with the Bushies that questions are always met with attacks? "Don't question Bush. Just follow along".

60 posted on 12/31/2002 8:21:28 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson