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.
... have read the first 250 posts in this thread (whew) ... early on it was stated that in his 5-4 tie breaking vote, and subsequent 6-3 vote, he voted that way because his job was to interpret law, not make it ...
.. seems to me, it was his and the other 9 to interpret, not make law ... were the 4 and 3 in the minority above trying to make new law ? ... it's implicit in the fact that the issue was before the court that they were there to interpret existing statutes, not make new law ... Gonzales didn't make or not make new law, he simply voted ...
... the question really was, did or did not the girl in this specific case have sufficient maturity and knowledge to know what she was doing ... that would in my view require a very subjective evaluation, and into it would enter alot of gut feel by each of the 9, including their personal values ...