/* trackback code -- i added this */

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Justice Gonzales?

I have very mixed feelings about Alberto Gonzales as a potential replacement for O'Connor. On the one hand, what I know of his time on the Texas Supreme Court makes me think he is a reasonable guy who listens to evidence and tries to apply the law as best as he understands it. On the other hand, he has a history of doing truly appalling things as an executive (two quick examples: his ridiculous but successful attempt to get then-Gov. Bush out of jury duty, which was evidently really about sparing Bush the embarrassment of confessing to his DUI history or perjuring himself; and, of course, his apparent role in developing---and total failure to oppose--legal arguments for allowing torture by the US government).

That said, as I watched the shows this morning, there was a good deal of talk about rightwing opposition to Gonzales; ditto for the Times and the Post today.

For example, an editorial on National Review Online says "Finally, the president has to know that conservatives, his supporters in good times and bad, would be appalled and demoralized by a Gonzales appointment." The main beef that NRO has with Gonzales seems to be that they feel he will be insufficiently rightwing on abortion issues. And, from the NY Times: "Paul M. Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, said he had told administration officials that nominating Mr. Gonzales, whose views on abortion are considered suspect by religious conservatives, would fracture the president's conservative backers."

From reading and watching the news the last several years, I get the strong sense that most of the rightwing angst about Gonzales and abortion dates to his comment in the Texas Supreme Court decision In re Jane Doe 1(II), 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000) (a case that is discussed here), in which he criticized then-colleague Priscilla Owen for substituting her own policy views for those of the Texas legislature in a case concerning parental notification and abortion. The money quote is that joining Owen's position "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

In the meantime, you always hear/see rightwingers say that they want courts to "interpret the law", not "make new law", etc, etc.

So think about these two facts:
  1. Rightwingers say they want judges who interpret laws as written.

  2. Rightwingers oppose Attorney General Gonzales for the Supreme Court because they think he is insufficiently willing to restrict --- really, eliminate --- abortion rights.
So which is it?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home