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.
Agreed.
The Bush haters are back, just looking for ANY issue to trash him with.
If they had their way, we'd snatch "defeat" from the jaws of victory!!!
Very well said! There's no indication that Gonzalez supports legal abortion in principle. I am a member of the Naitonal Right to Life organization and I think Gonzalez decided correctly in the case at hand. I don't approve in loopholes to parental notification laws, but Gonzalez may not approve of them either. However, the law in question had a loophole and it was Gonzalez's job to decide whether the law was being applied correctly. Judges are supposed to interpret laws, not pretend the laws already read as they would like them to.
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."
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.
Here's another issue I'm concerned about.
Barely a week has passed since 84 percent of the nation's self-described conservatives cast their ballots for George W. Bush, and already the president and his administration have delivered at least two good, strong, swift kicks in the teeth to the voters who elected him. Speaking in Mexico this week Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that the administration will revive its amnesty plan for illegal aliens, and in Washington Hispanic White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was named as the next attorney general.
The AG does not make laws. Single issue "conservatives" are usually not conservatives -- they can go liberal, depending on just one issue. I know of extreme liberals who are also pro-life.
Exactly. The AG in 1973 did not foment Roe v. Wade, and the one who's confirmed in 2004 will not be able to negate it.
A better use of time and energy is to keep the pressure on Arlen Specter, either to keep him from chairing Senate Judiciary, or failing that, to convince him to behave himself when grilling future nominees.
The lstter is already working, as Specter publicly backpedals on earlier statements. I credit National Review Online for much of this.
An unborn baby in its mother's womb is a human being. That's a fact, not a judge's "whim." A law that regards an unborn baby as less than human is an unjust law, which is to say, no law at all.
The only real issue I would have with this is if Mr. Gonzales offers a half-hearted defense of the partial-birth abortion ban, or a half-hearted defense of the ruling against euthanasia.
I expect him to continue Mr. Ashcroft's good work on both of these things, and not try to sabotage either one. After all, he works for the President, who is in favor of both.
This is infinitely better than having him on the USSC, which as I understand it was the other option.
Of course I'd rather have a 100% pro-life guy, but one case in a legal career does not make one a threat, especially when he will report to the President, who is rock solid.
Very well said.
Single issue? 1,460,000 human beings a year in the US alone! They sure as hell can't speak for themselves.
I just don't understand why everyone is upset. What does being for or against abortion have to do with being the Attorney General. His job is to enforce the laws on the books... A lot of people on this board A) are starting to sounds like DUmmies and B) just want something to complain about.
Single issue? Let's add another one. Gonzales went to the mat to oppose Ted Olson when he tried to get the DOJ to write a report criticizing the use of diversity (instead of merit) in college admissions.