Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Aren't Supreme Court justices supposed to enforce law without letting personal feelings get in the way?
=== This is a very troubling perspective on Bush.
See, this is the thing. It's NOT troubling. That's just it. In fact, it's only to be expected.
Only if he were to actually appoint a man of integrity to a spot where defense of human life were critical would I be troubled ... I'd have one hell of a time trying to figure that one out.
Lets just throw everybody who disagrees overboard. President Hillary will thank us in 4 years.
I would rather change the law the in correct way, than to have judges change the law according to their whims -- which is how we got abortion foisted on us in the first place.
And anyway -- as Attorney General Mr. Gonzales has no power to change laws, only to enforce them.
This guy is an excellent nominee. This stupid complaint does nothing but marginalize the pro-life position among a group that supports their position.
And it also makes them strange bedfellows with the folks on the left who want to oust Gonzales for being pro-life.
<sarcasm>
Bush is an idiot
</sarcasm>
Maybe it was just one of those campaign promise things...
I have a better question.
Why are people determined to emulate the behavior they despised in Daschle?
Speak to his qualifications (or lack thereof) to make the case of whether he should be AG. His views on abortion are not relevent on their own merit. Anymore than someone being a pro-Life Christian was relevent to their ability to serve as AG.
It is for others to change the law - not activist judges.
My only concern with Al being AG is whether he has the management experience. Otherwise, he is A'OK!
e-mail/call President Bush to encourage him to go to the right.
Techinally, it's still legal. Hopefully that changes soon. So our beef is Gonzalez doesn't make up the law as he goes along like the Florida Supreme Court in 2000; or the Roe v. Wade court; or the Massachusetts Supreme Court of 2004; or the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Sure didn't take long for the Bush administration to move left after the election, did it?
He and Powell are also trying to ram amnesty for illegal aliens through Congress as well, another leftist position.
I guess now that he is safely in office for another four years, its time to screw the folks that got it for him!
I am a strong pro-life person, however I think the abortion issue is inserted where it does not belong, What has the AG got to do with that issue?
Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot sometimes,we end up losing. Nothing will change regarding Roe, it has morphed to a constitutional issue, the one way to stop it is to stop women getting abortions in the first place, perhaps start with the teaching of abstinence, gee what a concept! The schools are teaching too much about sex and how to, that should stop, better they teach basics academics.
Please - please - you're sounding like the liberal left. When I voted for George W. I didn't expect him to be in lockstep with ALL my opinions and preferences. Could we give him the benefit of the doubt without starting the screaming and the petitions. He's a good man- giving us good men and women. Only children expect perfection in their leaders. Anyone who wants everthing their way should not be voting but running AND when in office reality will be confronted.
And I thought all the brain dead were CRATS. Look like we have out share. Please take note: The Atty. General does not make laws, or even influence them. He is the top cop enforcing laws we make. Grow up!
Officials are supposed to apply the law, courts interpret the law as written, legislators are supposed to write & change it. It is not conservative or pro-life to advocate judicial activism and mis-application of laws.
A.L.L. is a great org but in this case is hurting the pro-life cause by being frickin morons.
I have to disagree with American Life League on this issue.
The fact that Gonzales will be AG and NOT be a SCOTUS nominee is GREAT news!!!
I have no reason to believe that Gonzales will cause us any trouble in the position of USAG. And even if I'm wrong, he'll be gone in 4 years.
On the other hand, if he were placed on the SCOTUS, I believe he would be a moderate much like O'Connor and Kennedy -- causing us nothing but headaches year after year. And he might be on SCOTUS for 30+ years.
My advice to the ALL and other pro-life groups is to pick and choose your battles much more carefully. These groups will marginalize their positions greatly if they continue in this fashion -- and I would really hate to see this happen.
"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!
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.