Yep.
The quote, from Judie Brown of the American Life League:
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter... The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.' Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.Gonzales offers a clear strict constructionist position--the law over my personal opinion. That should be commendable, right? After all, "judicial activism" is the culprit, isn't it?
The time has come to put words and promises aside. The time has come for action. If the pro-abortion zealots will not yield and if those in charge of the Senate will not take the lead, use your powers to recess appoint pro-life judges to our federal courts and undo the judicial activism our legal system has suffered from over the past decade.ALL even cites Robert Bork on the matter:
Bork shows the difference between interpreting the law and using court decisions by judges to in effect dictate new law which could not pass through Congress. He shows the disadvantages (similar to those of a dictatorship) of permitting elite judges to dictate unpopular changes in American law. "Decisions are precedents; doctrines are applied to new cases; and what begins as an attitude of `Let's do it just this one time' grows into a deformation of constitutional government."More evidence that "judicial activism" is wrong only when it threatens your principles.
[thanks to Hit and Run]
Update: Ed Brayton has further thoughts.
5 comments:
And also more proof that Bush is true to his word--he isn't using a "litmus test" to appoint people.
Out of curiousity, do you think anything like judicial activism exists? Do you think there's a chance that decisions like Roe v. Wade (if not that decision) were made on grounds that weren't in the Constitution?
I'm trying to make sense of ALL's position, but I can't, unless they would argue that the AG is only responsible to enforce only those laws which are constitutional, and not those which are on the books. But this would commit them to placing power of determining "Constitutionality" in the AG's hands--something no one wants.
Go with the principal of charity--what's your best argument for their position on Gonzales?
And also more proof that Bush is true to his word--he isn't using a "litmus test" to appoint people.
Technically, it's not an appointment to the Supreme Court; the A.G. is the enforcer, not the interpreter; if Bush moves Gonzales up to Scotus, then he'll have been true to his word ("no litmus test for judicial appointments") but false to his most loyal constituency, at least in the respect that he's appointing someone with a dubious track record on that central issue.
Judicial activism may exist; there may be judges who jump at the chance to establish social policy through their interpretations. But it's more about the flexibility inherent in the Constitution--all the vaguely-worded clauses that are open to multiple interpretations, all the unenumerated rights (the "grounds not in the Constitution"). Simply because they're not listed doesn't negate their existence, as the Constitution itself says in the all-powerful 9th amendment.
I think ALL's position is perfectly clear in their most recent statement: they value unborn life above the vagaries of the judicial process. That's cogent; all they'd have to do is stop framing the issue in terms of "judicial activism" and talk about that value. Maybe it's just that their position has changed. I'm not sure.
"Simply because they're not listed doesn't negate their existence, as the Constitution itself says in the all-powerful 9th amendment."
I see.
Do you think there's any sort of hierarchy of rights? Also, what grounds rights on your view?
Just to point out, Bush is not nominating Gonzales to a judgeship, so it is somewhat strange to consider Gonzales's statements in regards so-called "activist judges." Gonzales is being nominated to be attorney general, which is an entirely different kind of office.
I'll respond to G.K.C. when I have more time (this weekend's been hectic, and I shouldn't even be on here, but that's addiction for you).
Anonymous, true, the A.G. isn't a justice, but I'm not the one criticizing the Gonzales nomination--it's A.L.L. who put out the press release. And, word on the street is that Gonzales still might be up for a spot on the court, so we'll have to wait to see how it plays out.
Post a Comment