Posted on 12/31/2002 6:39:08 AM PST by Afronaut
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:38:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the soft- spoken son of migrant farm workers, has emerged as the overwhelming favorite for a Supreme Court nomination in the months ahead, a move that would give President Bush a historic and politically powerful chance to name the first Latino to the nation's highest court.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
So if it was HIS interpretation that a law was unConstitutional, his vote would be OK as a constructionist. So he viewed a minor getting an abortion without parental consent as Constitutional in your view. Otherwise, he would have thrown it out.
Appy Pappy does. Because we live in the Republic of Appy Pappy, home of the rule of men. Laws not required. Constitutions are window dressing. Emotions rule.
Call yourself a WAAAHbulance.
I need context, or at least a case. Was the law in agreement with the Texas (I assume?) Constitution?
If Gonzales is a "strict constructionist" (and I don't know enough about his background at this point), but, if he is...isn't that what we conservatives want on the bench? Don't we want to see the high court interpret laws and not rewrite them?
Maybe you can help me out here. I'm certainly not a Constitutional Scholar (don't even play one on TV) - yet I've thrown around terms (like judicial activism, strict-constructionist, etc.) that I may not be totally familiar with.
My question to you (or anyone else who cares to respond) is this: "Judicial Activism" in 1973 gave us the abominable ROE V. WADE which, we might all agree, was the antithesis of "Strict Construction". So, by virtue of that fact is ROE V. WADE now considered as much a part of the Constitution as, say, the Bill of Rights?
And would overturning it be an example of "judicial activism" or "strict-construction"?
(BTW, I think you were the one that made a statement earlier that if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, the abortion question would return to the States. Do you think that would be a bad thing? I don't.)
Is Gonzales' constructionism strict enough that he believes the Constitution trumps stare decisis?
I don't know the answer in his case, but that's the real test of a strict constructionist. Any judge willing to shrug his shoulders at the "settled law" of the "living document" bench legislators isn't all that faithful to original intent, nor to the separation of powers.
How do you define "judicial activism?"
Re: "Don't you think we should find out before we call him a "conservative"?"
Obviously you will not find out from Bush shepple for a reason. However, your best bet to find out will be if the Democrats Bork him. If they don't, it is because they know what the Bush supporters won't 'fess' up to. Like Rudman sneaking Souter through and Elder Bush not bothering to find out or being a willing dupe.
Under the way the current federal government views the way it has collectively usurped power, yes. Under a strict constitutionalist SCOTUS justice, he probably wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade per se, but wait for a case to come along that would accomplish that if decided along a Constitutionalist viewpoint. You just can't re-open an old SCOTUS decision - it will take years to get a case to SCOTUS, probably by a state outlawing or severely restriciting abortion, and then having the law work its way up through the appalleate system. So when folks talk about a nominee voting to overturn Roe v. Wade, they are vastly simplifying the process.
(BTW, I think you were the one that made a statement earlier that if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, the abortion question would return to the States. Do you think that would be a bad thing? I don't.)
I didn't say that, but I do agree with you that it should be a state issue and as such would be a net positive.
Constitutionality was not a question before the court, and the court doesn't answer questions it is not asked. At least strict constructionist courts don't.
In any event, had Gonzales (along with the rest of the 100% Republican Texas Supreme Court) voted to overturn that Texas law, it would have resulted in NO PARENTAL NOTIFICATION at all, ever.
Get it?
You really need to up your meds. The "true believers" might think that, but the squishy middle is where the wins exist - hard right wing and hard left wing candidates cannot win elections based on a hardcore message. Bottom line is that to the middle, the GOP represents a group likely to apply thoughtful, considerate, measured force against crime, warlike states and terrorists. With regard to foreign policy, it will be robustly pro American. Domestically, it doesn't "knee jerk" to the crisis of the moment, and will seek more measured resonses to economic and social problems.
That is the kind of message that sells to that middle.
The 2nd amendment is very clear. A strict constructionist, IMHO, would have no choice but to uphold the right for citizens to own guns.
A strict constructionist would be most likely to strike down any attempt to legislate a change to the consitution and bypass the amendment process.
Hank, you are the one who made this statement:
If a law is wrong, it should be struck down.
Who defines wrong? You? Hillary Clinton? That's how we get an activist court that gyrates to the whims of political seasons. So this country becomes the Republic of Appy Pappy one year, and the Republic of Hillary Clinton the next, because you, not the Constitution, becomes the arbiter of proper judicial courses of action. A sound conservative, Robert Bork, warned specifically against that temptation, but you respond to me when I raised this issue by questioning my manhood. Which leads me to seriously question your character.
Twisting the clear intent of law, or creating new laws from the bench, in pursuit of one's political agenda. In other words, judges who should have run for Congress if they wanted to legislate. A strict constructionist may vehmently disagree with a given law, but if it passes Constitutional muster, he should vote to uphold it.
I may be wrong, but I believe the "law" you are talking about being "overturned" is Roe v. Wade - as in, AppyPappy wants a SC Justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade is not a law - it is a ruling that unconstitutionally disallowed the states from enacting laws to restrict or eliminate the murder of human beings who still reside in the womb. It doesn't take a judicial activist to overturn a demented ruling that possessed not a shred of constitutional foundation - a ruling which itself was solely based upon the PERSONAL VIEWS of the judicial activists who infested the Supreme Court at the time.
My agenda is to round file every bit of bench legislation ever authored by the acolytes of the "living document."
Is that conservative or liberal, in your view?
Constructionist, or activist?
There's no way to know, since the Texas Supreme Court doesn't generally rule on questions regarding the US Constitution. But jurists give heavy weight to settled law, which they must. Every case can't be a case of first impression, and I don't think Marbury v. Madison is likely to be overturned, despite its judicial activist ruling.
You lost me when you played the race card. What were you saying?
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.