Lots of SCOTUS speculation up at Red State, including this warning:
Attention White House: Plan on conservatives revolting if you do pick Gonzales.
Gotta apply the Dobson Test and the Perkins Proof. Maybe Bush is a united, after all- because you just know Democrats are also going to have a fit if Gonzalez is nominated. Well, certain Democrats are going to have a fit regardless who is nominated.
Stormy70
I don’t like Gonzales’ stance on the 2nd amendment.
John Cole
From what I have read, Gonzalez is a pretty reliable vote for statism, period.
Of course, we have to figure in who and what I have been reading…
Stormy70
I prefer waiting for the actual nomination, since it is all hot air until then. All this fury signifies nothing… :)
Andrew J. Lazarus
I think the Dems just might be smart enough to lay low and let Dobson do the screaming.
I don’t expect gonzales, though. I think Roy Moore is more in keeping with Bush’s screw-you style.
Tim F
Since I learned that Gonzales had scolded Priscilla Owen for ‘unconscionable judicial activism’ I’ve warmed up to him somewhat. The whole condoniung torture thing makes him repulsive, but not any more so than any other Republican defender of torture.
Stormy70
TimF – He did not scold her, it was someone else.
I paid for their Korans, so I don’t care if a soldier looks wrong at it. That seems to be what the detainees are calling torture, anyway.
Tim F
Funny how memory works. Was it Gonzales who scolded someone else, or someone else who scolded Owen?
Sojourner
Stormy:
Get your head out of your ass and read the descriptions of what’s being done to the detainees. Intentional ignorance is no defense for stupid comments.
Sojourner
Gonzales chastised Owen for making up her own versions of the law. I believe the conservatives call that judicial activism.
Andrew J. Lazarus
It was Gonzales scolding Owen; Stormy is wrong. (Why didn’t you think of that first?)
KC
Gonzales is who Bush wants, lets face it. He’s a safety choice. His authorship of the EO overturning the Presidential Records Act, the torture memos, and generally his guidance of executive branch legal issues makes him one person if he gets to the Court, that will always favor expanded executive powers, at least as long as Bush is in office. I’m really worried about the potential collapse of executive branch oversight (not that there is a lot now) and the rise of an unchallengable presidency if he becomes the swing vote on the court.
That said, I don’t think there is anything that Dems can do about Gonzales. In fact, whether it’s Gonzales or note, I think they should give Bush his nominee–they have little choice anyway–and let the American people decide how they like the way the country is headed. I know my girlfriend, who was a big Bush supporter this last election, is not enamoured at all of the possibility of her right to privacy being tossed.
Rick
Talk nice.
Cordially…
Stormy70
Read this.
I really enjoy the personal attacks from you stellar thinkers on the left, by the way.
Kimmitt
I’m not fond of Gonzales’s stance on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
Rick
Actually, if Gonzales presumed to “scold” Owens, my inclination is to think less of him. That damned, jerking knee thing.
Cordially…
Andrew J. Lazarus
Not everything you need to know about Judge Owen can be found in the article Stormy linked to, but this nugget is:
Now, for ten points, can anyone suggest why the Texas Supreme Court acted quickly in a pregnancy case?
You can read Gonzales on Owen here, criticizing her position in many cases.
Sojourner
Have you taken the time to review the facts on exactly what is being done to the detainees that you so disdainfully describe as nothing more than a
the Koran?
Darrell
KC, nowhere in the constitution is there mention of a ‘right to privacy’. Not to be snarky, but this is an important point. We have had Supreme court justices inventing such “rights” out of thin air. Are you concerned with judicial activism, treating the Constitution as a “living document” to be interpreted as they see fit?
Tim F
Child labor doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution either. Would Darrell prefer if we struck that down as well?
BinkyBoy
Darrell, the SCOTUS disagrees with you, stating that the Constitution does indeed provide for the right to privacy.
So will you please stop spouting lame Ditto head talking points and keep up with society?
You’re welcome to your opinion, such as encouraging a new SCOTUS Judge to re-evaluate the Constitution so that a Citizen’s Right to Privacy can be taken away, something that Junior Goerrings like youself seem to want to do. I would encourage you to look at the possible changes to your own life should a new SCOTUS Judge be amenable to repealing the rights to privacy. You and your partner wouldn’t be able to do that “thing” you like so much, for fear that your neighbor might turn you in for it.
Sojourner
Darrell: Read the 9th Amendment.
Darrell
Junior Goerrings? Oh my, did you have to go and do a Godwin’s law on your 1st post moron? NOWHERE in the constitution is there any mention of a ‘right to privacy’. The SCOTUS simply invented that ‘right’ out of thin air.
Ninth amendment:
i.e. Just because we didn’t mention all of the rights in this constitution, doesn’t mean they might not exist.
IMO, the courts have abused this open ended language. For example, how about the ‘right’ of the unborn baby not to be killed? No ‘ditto head talking points’ here.. just wondering if the left can be honest enough to admit there is no such “right to privacy” mentioned in the constitution, because there’s not.. Junior Goerrings notwithstanding
Kimmitt
For example, how about the ‘right’ of the unborn baby not to be killed?
Hey, citizenship begins at birth, and conservatives are against granting non-citizens due process, so where’s the problem?
Darrell
Tsk, tsk Kimmitt, the US Constitution does in fact guarantee due process to all “persons” (see 5th amendment), not just US citizens.. exceptions being POW’s captured during wartime.. or unlawful combatents caught fighting out of uniform
Step right up with you $$ and try your luck again to win that cupie doll
Sojourner
Best quote of the day!
Bob
I agree with the rumor about the land that all the anti-Gonzales chaff from the religious right is to: 1.) make Gonzales more palatable to those on the left who disapprove of torture and secret governments, and the general gutting of the Bill of Rights; and, 2.) to make Bush look strong when The Torture Guy squeaks through.
That is, it’s all orchestrated by Bush.
It could’ve been worse. He could have nominated Rove. Maybe when the prosecutor moves in.
Kimmitt
The Fifth Amendment:
There is exception for impanelment for a grand jury, but there is no exception whatsoever for deprivation of life or liberty without due process.
So, like I said — conservatives are against due process for noncitizens; therefore, even if I were to accept for the sake of argument that fetuses were human at any arbitrary point up to and following fertilization, they are stateless individuals who are, in current conservative thinking, rightsless.
To put it another way, the President could simply declare all fetuses, viable and unviable, to be suspected terrorists. This would legally resolve the matter fully.
Darrell
Kimmitt, the 5th amendment citation you quote is not referring to POW’s, but instead, to cases arising in the military services with OUR OWN military members.. dealing with how criminal acts committed by our OWN SOLDIERS would be handled differently from cases arising in civilian life. No due process rights for POW’s or unlawful combatents
If your point had a shred of validity, full due process would have to have been given to every one of the millions of POW’s taken by our forces in WWI, WWI, Korean war, etc.