Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

He could be the next Supreme Court justice
USA TODAY ^ | 3/18/02 | Joan Biskupic

Posted on 03/18/2002 2:45:54 AM PST by kattracks

Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON

(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: scotuslist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: helmsman
The requirements for a judicial bypass remain the same as they were when the law was enacted. In the first 5 cases that made it to the Texas SC, 3 bypass denials were upheld, and 2 were remanded to the lower courts for reconsideration.

The pro-life press makes it sound like the Texas SC created a bypass mechanism where none existed. That's simply not the case. There have been many bypass cases before the bench since the PNA was enacted, you just haven't heard of the ones that have not reached the Texas SC. The cases are running ~50-50 granted / denied.

I would submit that it's the pro-life crowd who was unable to achieve their goal politically.
41 posted on 03/18/2002 11:48:43 AM PST by Tickle Me Pank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tickle Me Pank
The pro-life press makes it sound like the Texas SC created a bypass mechanism where none existed. That's simply not the case. There have been many bypass cases before the bench since the PNA was enacted, you just haven't heard of the ones that have not reached the Texas SC. The cases are running ~50-50 granted / denied.

I would submit that it's the pro-life crowd who was unable to achieve their goal politically.

The bypass opportunity is required to be on any parental notice legislation by the federal Supreme Court. Political support, in the legislature or in the public at large, was never an issue as to whether the Texas law would have one. And parental notification laws are up there next to ice cream in public popularity, as is nearly every abortion control that has ever been proposed.

42 posted on 03/18/2002 12:13:03 PM PST by helmsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: helmsman
Correction. Just realized that that the Texas law requires only one parent be notified, instead of both. This would escape the bypass requirement. Still, the public will isn't always represented terribly well in legislatures, unfortunately.
43 posted on 03/18/2002 12:24:11 PM PST by helmsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: helmsman
"Everybody knows that Bush is pro-life, because he says so. Therefore, the story cannot be true."

You made me LOL with that one.

44 posted on 03/18/2002 12:25:14 PM PST by Artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Artist
Heya, Artist. I have some really funny Bush jokes, but they're not exactly appropriate for FR, know wat I meen? No, I love him, I really do...
45 posted on 03/18/2002 12:38:59 PM PST by helmsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
In Washington, Gonzales' close-to-the-vest manner hasn't always played well, particularly among Democrats who are pressing the administration for a more ideologically diverse roster of nominees for federal courts.

And so it goes...

Conservatives should field a "diverse" roster of nominees while liberals should be free to choose the most leftist, activist judges they can find.

46 posted on 03/18/2002 6:22:14 PM PST by ez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tickle Me Pank
The opinion of Justice Gonzales in the Jane Doe case which allowed the Judicial Bypass.....

File: 00-0224A - From documents transmitted: 06/22/2000

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
............
No. 00-0224
............
In re Jane Doe

....................................................
Appeal Under Section 33.004(f), Family Code
....................................................

Justice Gonzales, joined by Justice Enoch, concurring.
        I fully join in the Court's judgment and opinion. I agree that there is no evidence supporting the trial court's finding that Jane Doe was not sufficiently well informed. And I agree that the contrary position is established as a matter of law.         
        Only in this, an appeal after remand of the first of four Jane Doe cases, has the Court granted a minor's application to bypass notifying her parents before she consents to an abortion. FN:1 Yet in each case, the Court has struggled to render the correct decision, and some members of the Court have strongly disagreed. The tenor of the opinions have been unmistakably contentious. It has been suggested that the Court's decisions are motivated by personal ideology. See ___ S.W.3d ___ (Hecht, J., dissenting). To the contrary, every member of this Court agrees that the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the Legislature. FN:2 This case is no different. The Court's decision is based on the language of the Parental Notification Act as written by the Legislature and on established rules of construction. Any suggestion that something else is going on is simply wrong.
        Legislative intent is the polestar of statutory construction. See City of LaPorte v. Barfield, 898 S.W.2d 288, 292 (Tex. 1995). Our role as judges requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we might like to see enacted, and instead do our best to discern what the Legislature actually intended. See Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865-66 (Tex. 1999). We take the words of the statute as the surest guide to legislative intent. See id. at 866. Once we discern the Legislature's intent we must put it into effect, even if we ourselves might have made different policy choices. See id.
        The starting point for understanding the Parental Notification Act is its provision that a medical professional may not perform an abortion on a minor without first notifying one of the parents. See Tex. Fam. Code § 33.003(a). The policy decision here is clear _ to protect parents' rights to involve themselves in their daughters' decisions and to encourage that involvement. But that is only the starting point. The Legislature did not make this parental right absolute. Instead, the Legislature created three exceptions, allowing a minor to avoid notifying her parents if she can show: (1) she is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without notification of either parent, (2) notification of the parents would not be in the minor's best interest, or (3) notification of the parents may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor. See Tex. Fam. Code § 33.003(i).
        The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. And I find nothing in this statute to directly show that the Legislature intended such a narrow construction. As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent's right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. See ___ S.W.3d at ___. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute's legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. See id. at ___ (detailing legislative history). Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism. As a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect and guide the education, safety, health, and development of their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the Legislature has elected not to do so.         The Court said in Doe 1(I) that a minor must make at least three showings before she may exercise the bypass rights the Legislature gave “mature and sufficiently well informed” minors under section 33.003(i). In re Doe 1(I), ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2000). These showings are to ensure that the minor can demonstrate the level of maturity and knowledge the Legislature seems to have intended when it passed a statute that primarily protects parental rights, but also confers judicial bypass rights to certain minors. Based on the evidence of Doe's maturity and knowledge, I conclude the limitations upon parental rights in section 33.003(i) apply here. Therefore, I am compelled to grant Doe's application.
        It is important to appreciate that the Legislature adopted a statutory scheme that subordinates parental rights in the case of a mature and sufficiently well informed minor, even if the minor has an ideal relationship with her parents, and even if notifying the parents would not only not place the minor in emotional or physical danger, but may in fact be in her best interest. While the ramifications of such a law and the results of the Court's decision here may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the Legislature. Justice Hecht charges that our decision demonstrates the Court's determination to construe the Parental Notification Act as the Court believes the Act should be construed and not as the Legislature intended. See ___ S.W.3d at ___ (Hecht, J., dissenting). I respectfully disagree. This decision demonstrates the Court's determination to see to it that we discharge our responsibilities as judges, and that personal ideology is subordinated to the public will that is reflected in the words of the Parental Notification Act, including the provisions allowing a judicial bypass.
        Because the majority opinion correctly applies the Act as written to the facts in this record, I concur.
        
                            ___________________
                                Alberto R. Gonzales
                                Justice


OPINION ISSUED: June 22, 2000

47 posted on 03/18/2002 6:47:21 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: lepton
See #47 above. I meant to flag you also but didn't
48 posted on 03/18/2002 6:48:42 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I doubt that the ticket was ever even thought about. Heck this was only in his 2nd year as governor. I doubt he was even thinking very much of running for re-election at the time.... just a snipe, imo.

49 posted on 03/18/2002 6:53:14 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73
Just what I was thinking. The demos will attack him just like they did Clarence Thomas.
50 posted on 03/18/2002 6:53:28 PM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Starting with Pickering, the administration should make it clear that any nominee who is not given a full Senate vote will be recessed appointed at the earliest date. This policy can begin during the upcoming Easter Recess.
51 posted on 03/18/2002 6:56:42 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
One of Gonzales' most controversial actions in that post was helping to get George W. Bush excused from jury duty in 1996, a situation that could have required the governor to disclose his then-secret 1976 conviction for drunken driving in Maine.

Not sure he did Bush a favor. If the DUI is 4-year-old news in Nov 2000, Bush carries FL easily, maybe.

52 posted on 03/18/2002 6:58:34 PM PST by xlib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: deport
Thanks, deport, so we meet again! :)
53 posted on 03/18/2002 8:27:18 PM PST by Tickle Me Pank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #54 Removed by Moderator

To: sonofliberty2
Good post.

This tactic is typical of the Bush strategy. Present one thing to conservatives and Republicans, and do another.

55 posted on 03/21/2002 3:32:50 PM PST by Brownie74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Sid Rich, sonofliberty2
How does applying the law as written translate to torpedoing legislation? Justice Gonzales was not in the legislature drafting the law. I thought strict constructionism was a tenet of the conservative movement?

Applying the law as written? What the heck are you talking about? Just because the Gang of Five unconstitutionally changed the constitution in their 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to include some imaginary "right of privacy" which would mandate their agenda abortion on demand doesn't mean that killing our unborn babies is not unconstitutional. In point of fact abortion is unconstitutional as it deprives American babies of their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" among other things. Strict constructionism means interpreting the Constitution as it was intended by its Founders not endorsing the past 30 years reign of radical liberal judicial fiat common law!!
56 posted on 03/23/2002 2:40:11 PM PST by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson