Posted on 03/29/2005 3:30:56 PM PST by ninenot
The White House was "troubled," according to one source, about the reported actions -- or inactions -- of the Justice Department last week as Republicans in Congress made a last ditch attempt to rescue Terri Schiavo.
"You actually had Arlen Specter and his Judiciary Committee out there trying to save this woman's life, and then you have Alberto Gonzales and his crew over at Justice basically putting up roadblocks," says a White House staffer. "This was not a good way for Gonzales to start his tenure there."
Gonzales has been on the job at Justice for a little over two months now, and the congressional attempts to restore the feeding tube to Schiavo was the new AG's first high-profile foray into the politics that swirl around the Justice Department.
By most accounts, Gonzales and his team fared poorly, at least from Republican viewpoints. "Instead of trying to work with us, all we got were no's and roadblocks, with little guidance on what we could do and could not do," says a House leadership staffer who spoke often with the Justice Department's Legislative Affairs office. "They weren't being helpful, and they sure weren't doing the White House any favors."
Ultimately, both the House and the Senate passed -- and President Bush signed -- legislation designed to give Schiavo's parents their best shot at having a federal court overrule the rulings of Florida state courts. Those federal filings ultimately failed.
Before the legislation, the Senate Judiciary Committee -- with Specter's approval -- and House Republicans attempted to subpoena Terri Schiavo, a political maneuver that won plaudits from a number of conservative groups around the country, but which received a thumbs-down the Department of Justice. "The Justice Department pushed us hard to withdraw the subpoena idea," says the House staffer. "We told them that the White House knew about this, and that they tacitly approved. It didn't seem to matter to DOJ. Gonzales and his folks just made things harder for us."
"If the White House was hoping that Gonzales might be able to burnish his image for conservatives leading up to a Supreme Court nomination, the Schiavo case tarnished it pretty badly," says a staffer for a Senator who was pushing hard for the subpoena solution. "I'll say this, every conservative up here was wishing [former Attorney General John] Ashcroft was still there."
To be fair to Gonzalez, Ashcroft's presence at Justice probably would not have made much difference. Ashcroft was excoriated by conservatives on his leaving office for what they said were his failures to press for tough stands against pornography, human trafficking and abortion rights, while not pressing hard enough for faith-based programs.
Another Senate staffer says her impression of the Justice Department's role in the Schiavo case is more benign. "They were giving us straight legal analysis from the federal perspective, nothing more, which is probably what has a lot of people up in arms, and it was all behind the scenes. These folks wanted Gonzales out front, making it appear this was an issue he cared about. That didn't happen," says the staffer. "But I don't think anyone can dispute that the legal advice they gave us wasn't sound. They just didn't help us get to where we wanted to be."
And for failing to do that, many Republicans in the House and the Senate say that Gonzales has failed the first litmus test on the conservative scorecard.
Free Republic has gone to hell.
Bump
There are First Things, and then there are civil laws and constitutions.
Under the civil laws and constitutions of the Third Reich, Hitler's actions were perfectly legal.
So were Clinton's in the Elian Gonzalez affair.
Of course, at FR, there are those who think that a life here, a life there--that's not too important vs. the image of good little Republican boys with their white and unspotted gloves...
Yep this article has documentation to the hilt.....
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
A Man For All Seasons, by Robert Bolt
Jayson Blair just vouched for this story and the sources.
Good post!
Irrelevant and immaterial. More's conundrum was not related to the Life issue (except his own...) and it is clear that under the FL Constitution AND the US Constitution, either executive (or Congressional) actions can be taken.
Further, it is clear that the Fed Courts simply ignored explicit Congressional language in failing to de-novo review the case.
Amen to that.
I don't worry too much about the Spectator's sources--they have been very reliable reporters of events in DC (and Arkansas) for at least 25 years.
Well, that makes a lot of sense.
Which of those patriots fought to protect legalized MURDER in the USA?
Name a few. I WILL spit on their graves.
Actually, it is not clear at all.
Further, it is clear that the Fed Courts simply ignored explicit Congressional language in failing to de-novo review the case.
Please quit blaming the courts for not reaching beyond the pleading filed by Gibbs. He deliberately threw the case by not filing a review for the merits of the ruling, merely by rehashing already-settled procedural arguments.
They fought to preserve the Rule of Law, something which you for which you apparently have little respect. Nobody likes every law on the books, and we don't get it right every time, but it's the system and process that has made us the greatest and most compassionate nation on the planet.
You hit the nail on the head with this post.
Except the biggie. The activist judiciary. They will never control this because they are a bunch of weenies.
We should not expect the AG to be about crafting some perfect, legal excuse for protecting and preserving innocent life. It is a matter for the people and all branches of government to be about. In this case, all three branches of government have abdicated their responsibilities. So have a good many citizens.
I reckon he's too busy going after the tobacco companies, crafting new "Assault" Weapon Ban legislation and attending La Raza meetings.
Beat me to it, eg.
Sorry--I don't have respect for a Rule of Law which allows Murder One by a conniving judge and a craven Husband-In-Name-Only.
And your preaching ain't gonna change my attitude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.