Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
To: National Desk
Contact: Amber Matchen of the American Life League, 540-903-9572 or amatchen@all.org
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, issued the following statement in response to news that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales is being considered as the replacement for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft:
"President Bush appears to be doing all that he can to downright ignore pro-life principles. There can be no other explanation for his recommendation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Gonzales has a record, and that record is crystal clear.
"As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime. Choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population -- preborn babies in the womb.
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter... The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.' Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.
"President Bush claims he wants to assist in bringing about a culture of life. Such a culture begins with total protection for every innocent human being from the moment that person's life begins. Within the short period of one week, the president has been silent on pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter's desire to chair the senate judiciary committee, and has spoken out in favor of a judge with a pro-abortion track record to lead the Justice Department.
"Why is President Bush betraying the babies? Justice begins with protecting the most vulnerable in our midst. Please, Mr. President -- just say no to the unjust views of Alberto Gonzales."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
The law had a loophole allowing said circumvention. Your complaint is that he didn't rewrite the law from the bench.
no, technically it is NOT legal as per the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution, the SCOTUS decisions notwithstanding.
My reasoning is similar to Lincoln's reasoning when he, in essence, told Chief Justice Taney and the SCOTUS that THEY were acting illegally when they ruled that slaves were "inferior Beings", and "property".
Lincoln basically said to the SCOTUS, "you're wrong, and we're not obligated to follow your decision.
And Abe didn't even have the amendments we have NOW.
Gonzalez was not only justified in ruling otherwise than he did in Texas, he had a responsibility to.
The SCOTUS is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of Government, NOT the infallible rule. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to protecting innocent human beings.
"Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.'"
Legislating from the bench is wrong, whether it's from the left OR the right.
Judges are there to INTERPRET and UPHOLD the law.
Not CHANGE it.
That is the LEGISLATURES job!
And this is EXACTLY why Gonzales is appropriate for the AG position and NOT the SCOTUS. He will be the chief law enforcement officer in the land. He will NOT be able to make laws. And for all those clamoring over this, the biggest PRO-LIFER of them all is sitting in the Oval Office as we speak. With up to 4 SCOTUS vacancies in the next 4 years, you can bet the farm that the Court will be very much pro-life in the future.
Whoever said these were our friends?
Wasn't the AG who prosecuted judge Roy Moore also a Bush judicial pick who was fillibustered by the Democrats?
I agreed with Moore but I also agreed with the AG for doing exactly what his job required hum to do.
Any said "loophole" is superceded by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution. Gonzalez had a responsibility to rule accordingly.
My opinion of Joe Farah is shaped by my opinion of WorldNetDaily. And my opinion of WND is not high. And now we have Joe "recalling" (i.e., gossiping about) something he heard 2 years ago, and drawing a typically hyperbolic conclusion from it.
"I can deal with my enemies. God save me from my "friends.""
Well-said. We are our own worst enemies at times. I think the loss the Democrats just endured should be a cautionary tale to the GOP. We're feeling our oats now and feeling like anything less than perfect ideological fealty, even when it simply came about as a judge interpreting the law rather than making law from the bench, is to be stomped on and destroyed at once. The Dems. have lost 2 major elections now due to fanatical ideological crusades. Hope we don't make the same mistake.
See 27
See 27
I understand your point. However, I am against any type of activist judge (choice or life), and fail to see the relevance of this issue in the context of Attorney General. The man appears to be an excellent choice.
I agreed with Moore but I also agreed with the AG for doing exactly what his job required hum to do.
Moore was correct, and the AG has a responsibilty to rule according to the U.S. Constitution regardless of whether higher courts refuse to.
Therefore, the AG would not be have been doing his job in that circumstance if he ruled contra Moore.
Well until the Supremes rule that way, we are stuck.
These pro-lifer vs. pro-lifer circular firing squads are counter productive.
Especailly when it means some on our side make common cause with the NOW nags in opposing Gonzalez.
See 27
Bush has already expanded government at the greatest rates since Lyndon Johnson and persists in pushing for pseudo-amenisty for illegals. So, it becomes an absolute necessity that ALL judges are in mold of Clarence Thomas and Anton Scalia.
This is the one chance in a generation to stop the judicial tyranny from the bench. It will be unforgiveable if Bush doesn't follow through on his promises and the Republicans in the Senate don't get this judges into the courts.
Do what ever you think you're big enough to do. But the "pro-life organizations" lost the vast majority of their followers over the last four years because of their false alarms abaut President Bush.
Now all they do is wait until there is a popular uprising by conservatives and then jump in and try to take credit.
If your "pro-life organization" is so powerful what are you doing over on FR? Doesn't your group have a website bulletin board?
PS: Don't forget to send them money.
Gonzales opinions criticizing Owen dissents on reproductive rights
In re Jane Doe 1(II), 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000)
A recent Texas law requires minors who seek an abortion to notify their parents unless a court grants a "judicial bypass" based on its finding that: the applicant is "mature and sufficiently well informed" to make the decision herself; notification would not be in the applicant’s "best interest;" or "notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse" of the applicant. In this particular case, the court ruled 6-3 that the minor had "conclusively established the statutory requirements to obtain a judicial bypass." Id. at 361. Owen dissented vigorously, accusing the majority, including Gonzales, of acting "irresponsibly." Id. at 383. The majority specifically rejected the views of Owen and the other dissenters, explaining that the dissents’ efforts to make it much harder to obtain a judicial bypass contradicted the legislature’s judgment in enacting the statute and that, whatever their feelings about abortion, judges "cannot ignore the statute or the record." Id. at 356. Recently, Gonzales has suggested that this simply reflected "an honest and legitimate difference of how to interpret a difficult and vague statute." But Gonzales also wrote a separate concurring opinion criticizing the dissenting opinions for advocating a "narrow construction" of the bypass provision nowhere found in the statute and "directly contradict[ed]" by its legislative history. Id. at 365-66. In fact, Gonzales specifically wrote that adopting the dissenters’ narrow view "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Id. at 366 (emphasis added).
apparently being hated by the judicial activist groups is a plus. He did not want judicial activism in this instance because it dealt with legislation.
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.