[Dog Gone]

He's a strict constructionist. Even the ONE CASE that one-issue conservatives use to castigate Gonzales, a parental notification case in Texas, is an example of where he interpeted the law instead of writing a new one.

Gonzales would be a terrific Justice, and I hope Bush nominates him when the time comes.

[AppyPappy]

Exactly how is he a "conservative"?

[Wait4Truth]

He's a strict constructionist. Even the ONE CASE that one-issue conservatives use to castigate Gonzales, a parental notification case in Texas, is an example of where he interpeted the law instead of writing a new one.

The Bush-haters only want the "interpreted" when it suits their aims. A "strict constructionist", which "true" conservatives always say they want, is not acceptable if it does not fit in with their demands. While running for the presidency, George W. Bush stated over and over again that he would appoint "strict constructionists"...he is holding to his word, as I expected. Go, Gonzales!

[PhiKapMom]

Gonzales would be a terrific Justice, and I hope Bush nominates him when the time comes.

My sentiments exactly. Would be nice to have someone else on the Supreme Court that is a strict "Constitutionalist" in addition to the several judges on there now. Don't want Supreme Court justices or any other judges "making" the law instead of interpreting the law whether it be liberal or conservative.

Have noticed over the years that when judges "interpret" instead of "make" laws, rulings come down in favor of conservatives the vast majority of the time. It seems that some conservatives haven't figured that out yet or refuse to acknowledge -- better to push one's agenda than recognize reality.

[Sabertooth]

He's a strict constructionist.

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.

[rwfromkansas]

Alarm bells are going off in my head about this being a possible Souter 2. That said, those bells will disappear if you can convince me (and it wouldn't take a lot, as I am pretty much a certified Bushie....) that the TX case was a true strict constructionist rendering. That totally escapes me.....it seems the state would have a right to allow abortions in minors only if they get parental permission and that doesn't seem to be a violation of a state's power.