I've named four in the State of Texas and ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They're good, solid men and women who have made good, sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.
Judges are elected in Texas, but Bush was nonetheless able to appoint four to the state Supreme Court to fill vacancies: James A. Baker, a state appellate judge and political supporter (not the former secretary of state); Greg Abbott, who had been a lower court judge and is now Texas attorney general; Deborah G. Hankinson, a defense lawyer; and Gonzales, who was Bush's general counsel and Texas secretary of state. Often included in the list of Bush appointees is Harriet O'Neill, whom Bush appointed to a lower court but who was elected to the high court. Pragmatism Drove Bush In Texas Judicial Choices
By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 8, 2005; Page A04
Gonzales was a demonstrated judicial activist in the Texas parental notification series of cases. Cites to the cases below, followed by a couple excerpts.
http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/tx/2000_6txsc.html
TX Supreme Court 00-0224
Gonzales Concurring Opinion
Enoch & Baker Concurring Opinion
Abbott Dissenting Opinion
Hecht Dissenting Opinion
Owen Dissenting Opinion
Below cites are from: Texas Law on Parental Notification
The links are to the Texas Supreme Court case archives, and provide ZIP files. The archived year 2000 cases consist exclusively of WordPerfect renditions of the opinions. The archived year 2002 link include html and pdf renditions, in addition to WordPerfect.
A fair (i.e., accurate) summary of the majority opinions.
- Jane Doe 1(I), No. 00-190, 19 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. Feb. 25, 2000);
- Jane Doe 1(I), No. 00-224, 19 S.W.3d 300 (Mar. 10, 2000) (Hecht, J. dissenting from order reversing the court of appeals after remand);
- Jane Doe 1(II), No. 00-224, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Jun. 22, 2000)
- Jane Doe 2, No. 00-191, 19 S.W.3d 278 (Mar. 7, 2000)
- Jane Doe 3, No. 00-193, 19 S.W.3d 300 (Mar. 13, 2000)
- Jane Doe 4(I), No. 00-213, 19 S.W.3d 322 (Mar. 22, 2000);
- Jane Doe 4(II), No. 00-317, 19 S.W.3d 337 (Apr. 11, 2000)
- Jane Doe 10, 78 S.W. 3d 338 (April 19, 2002) (No link.
- Jane Doe XI, No. 02-0933, 2002 92 S.W.3d 511 (Tex. Oct. 10, 2002)
The Legislature directed trial courts to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Tex. Fam. Code § 33.003(h). The trial court in this case did so. Under well-established precedent, a reviewing court must presume that the trial court's judgment in this case is supported not only by its express finding that Doe was not sufficiently well informed, but also by its implied finding that Doe was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion without notification of a parent. Doe had the burden of establishing both elements of that ground fro proceeding with an abortion without notification. Nothing in the Family Code indicates that the Legislature intended to override the appellate principle that an omitted finding on one ground for relief will be presumed to support the judgment.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/000224d3.htm <- Owen Dissent
Often a court construing a statute wishes that it had more information about what the Legislature intended. Since issuing its first opinions construing the Parental Notification Act, this Court has received extraordinary assistance from Members of the Legislature in reviewing the history of the statute. The Senate and House sponsors of the legislation, together with eight other senators and forty-six other representatives, have informed the Court as amici curiae that its construction of the statute to date is incorrect, and they have provided citations to the hearings and debates on the statute to support their view. While the Court is certainly not bound by the post-enactment views of legislators, the Court is wrong to simply dismiss the parts of the legislative record that these legislators have cited in support of their position. Relying instead on a few minor, isolated comments it can find in the legislative history to support its own view, and disregarding significant portions of that record to the contrary, the Court dares the Legislature: If we have not got the statute's meaning right, then amend it. "This," says the Court, "is precisely how the separation of powers doctrine should work."http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/000224d2.htm <- Hecht dissent
One can safely assume the George Bush's political rhetoric has been fairly steady regarding the proper function of judges in our government. George Bush considers Gonzales to be a strict constructionist. That should give an open-minded thinking person reason for closer scrutiny of the pick, in advance.
That is not personal against President Bush, not from me anyway. The fact that I don't trust him on this matter doesn't mean I think he is a liar, or bad intentioned. He is a politician - and in the end, his actions have political ramifications.
Firstly, thanks for the urls to peruse.
Secondly ... Re: "One can safely assume the George Bush's political rhetoric has been fairly steady regarding the proper function of judges in our government. George Bush considers Gonzales to be a strict constructionist. That should give an open-minded thinking person reason for closer scrutiny of the pick, in advance."
This should be of no surprise to anyone who follows politics. I need not remind you that the choice for 2000 was between Gore and GWB. I will say no more.
For 2004 the choice was between Kerry and GWB. Again I will say no more.
Candidate Bush was, in fact, quite clear in his campaigns and his actions after being elected, both for governor and president, that he was not a "conservative" in the mold many here are subscribing.
He is, as you dutifully point out a politician and as such reacts as a politician. To somehow imagine that President Bush has or will morph into a Eugene McCarthy is beyond naievity.
" He is a politician - and in the end, his actions have political ramifications."
Again, that is true. However the reality is that this country is operated in the arena of politics and all of it; the WOT, the borders, SCOTUS, the circut courts, the McCain rebellion, the RHINO Congress, etc. etc., all have "ramifications".
I, personally am not enamored by the Harriet Miers selection. (not that that matters to anyone but myself) Personally I don't see selecting a woman, in fact there are no designated seats, as such, on the Supreme Court, whether by gender, or by philosophy, yet that drum keeps beating.
Also I understand the disappointment of the "conservatives". What I don't understand is why many cannot see the many faceted reasons why Ms Miers was nominated and are seemingly against the Senate hearings. I would suggest the "half a loaf is better than none" syndrome is in effect.
BTW ... Thank you for your civility in this matter.
