Assuming that Gonzales is being honest about his thoughts, the following exchanges simply disqualify him from service on SCOTUS:
Q: Judge Gonzales, we’re hearing conflicting reports about your position on abortion. Can you tell us where you stand?
A: As a judge, I have to make judgments in conformity with the laws of our nation.
Q: Would you say that, regarding Roe vs. Wade, stare decisis would be governing here? (Note, stare decisis means that he would continue to uphold that decision because he would regard it as a binding precedent.)
Different day, different forum, same damn-fool answer:
Q: Judge Gonzales, it’s well known that the Clinton administration had a very clear and consistent litmus test in regard to judicial nominations. If that person was not pro-abortion, they were not nominated. In light of this, do you ask your nominees what their position is on abortion?
A: No, we do not. We judge them on a very broad basis of conservatism and constitutional construction.
Q: Many of us feel that the Constitution does not speak to permissive abortion. Would you comment?
A: The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.
Email from C.J. Willkie, http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8001
Judge Garza, on the other hand, is not baggaged by stare, nor has he voiced a vapidity similar to "...what the Supreme[s] say it is." And the American Spectator's guess is Garza.
One other little surprise in the Spectator: Ginsburg will ALSO retire, as will Rehnquist. The Spectator's guess is that Garza will be nominated first--Person X will be second--and if Gonzales gets in at all, he'll be the last nominee.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment