It was soley left up to the courts to determine the standard for a judicial bypass and Gonzalez and friends went out of their way to set a low standard to obtain one.
This blind faith in Bush's nominees is going to result in more O'Connors, Souters and Kennedys making their way into the court system and SCOTUS.
Gonzalez is totally unacceptable as a future Supreme Court nominee.
A 6-3 decision.... Since you seem to know so much about the ruling and the requirements within the Parental Notification Act could you explain to me and the rest of the readers on this thread where the following from the Opinion is not correct and your statement cited above is? In other words back up your words with proof to discount what the opinion said. Do you have the enumeration in the act that supports your claims? Or are you just blowing smoke and spreading lies?
From the Opinion .....
B. The Statutory Proof Standard
In creating the bypass procedure, the Legislature delegated no authority to the courts to determine the grounds upon which to grant a bypass. Rather, it specifically enumerated the grounds that, if shown, require the courts to grant a parental notification waiver. Neither did the Legislature give courts authority to decide the level of proof a minor must show to prove that she is entitled to a bypass. And although the Legislature could have chosen to impose a higher standard of proof, such as by requiring the minor to establish the statutory requisites by "clear and convincing" proof or proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," it did not do so. Instead, it set the level of proof at the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard. (3)