Thanks for your perspective.
The stupid people who have direct ties behind the scenes say this is a stepping stone to put Gonzales on the Federal bench, perhaps SCOTUS.
Would you approve of Gonzales on the US Supreme Court? He is NOT Pro-Life.
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/112004h.asp
When Gonzales was a member of the Texas Supreme Court, he voted to allow a teenager to get an abortion without notifying her parents, circumventing the notification law in that state. His vote was the tie-breaker in that decision. Joe Pojman of the Greater Austin Right to Life Committee noted that vote when Gonzales was appointed as White House Counsel in late December 2000. "We had hoped he would do more to protect parents' rights," the pro-life said at that time. "We don't know how he stands on the fundamental issue of abortion, because he hasn't had a chance to rule on it." And Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WorldNetDaily, has his own reservations about Gonzales taking the lead at the DOJ. He recalls hearing the White House Counsel say two years ago that it is up to the Supreme Court alone to determine what actions of government are constitutional. "The Supreme Court tells us what the Constitution says and means," Gonzales said at that private dinner Farah attended. The WND founder says "Clearly, Gonzales has exactly the wrong judicial philosophy for times such as these. Americans don't need black-robed justices divining the meaning of the Constitution."
The law had a loophole allowing said circumvention. Your complaint is that he didn't rewrite the law from the bench.
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.
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.
BUMP! Thanks for that link.
Farah is an idiot. As for your "behind the scenes" people, they are almost always wrong. The pundits have mis-called Bush's actions for 4 years. Your people have no better track into the President's mind.
If you will recall, the Bush administration doesn't bother to notify anyone of their plans. That is as it should be.
Your cause is just in being pro-life, but this fight isn't worth fighting.
He will not make law. Just enforce existing law.
That is integrity. That is the most prominent aspect of the Bush adminstration and it has fit the majority of Bush appointments.
That's an outright lie.
I have a problem with people who lie.
In actuality, Alberto Gonzales based his decision on the letter of the Texas law.
What you posted about Alberto Gonzales is no better than what Michael Moore writes about President Bush, and makes you and the people who authored the lie the moral equals to Moore.
The "tie-breaker" part is demonstrably false, since the decision was 6-3.