It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No, not Gonzales!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has resigned her seat on the Supreme Court, there is a torrent of speculation over who will replace her. One name being bandied about is Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. I have real mixed feelings about that guy. On one hand, he was one who argued on behalf of the use of torture (The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib" by Karen Greenberg & Dratel); on the other hand, he is known for supporting Roe v. Wade.

If Bush is considering him, he's in for a fight either way.


No, not Gonzales!
Robert Novak (archive)


June 27, 2005 | Print | Send


WASHINGTON -- It was not merely a leak from the normally leak-proof Bush White House. For more than a week, a veritable torrent has tipped Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as President Bush's first nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. It has sent the conservative movement into spasms of fear and loathing.
www.townhall.com...




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Hum I bet is many of Mr. Bush supporters salivating and kissing butt for that position in the supreme court.

I got the feeling that Gonzales is going to be the one.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

I got the feeling that Gonzales is going to be the one.


But Marg, that would fly in the face of Bush's religious conservative backers!

See the catch 22?



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I dunno about that one ECK. I've heard his name mentioned, but not since O'Connor's retirement announcement.

Major reason it won't happen: Bush would then have to pick another AG and go through that whole process again. With the possible retirements of the supremes, Gozales should have not taken the AG job. (which means I will be shown wrong)

And, we can be pretty sure the Chief Justice will be leaving very soon...so there are two more issues to debate: his replacement as Chief and another Supreme.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I dunno about that one ECK. I've heard his name mentioned, but not since O'Connor's retirement announcement.


The thing is, nobody knows. There has never really been any precedent in the picking. Bush has a lot of pressure on him from the religious right, who has backed him strenuously. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Whoever Bush picks should have the courtesy of an up or down vote.

The last Supreme Court nominee was Ruth Ginsberg. She had a history of being an extreme liberal, but she was confirmed by a vote of 93-0 and was on the court within 7 weeks.

Will Democrats give the same courtesy that the Republicans gave to Clinton and Ginsberg?

As hateful as the Democrats have been, I really doubt it.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Whoever Bush picks should have the courtesy of an up or down vote.


Rhetoric aside, that is not the question. The question is what way will Bush go? With his religious fundies or with someone who will uphold Roe v. Wade?


Will Democrats give the same courtesy that the Republicans gave to Clinton and Ginsberg?


Were you around for Clinton's nominees?


As hateful as the Democrats have been, I really doubt it.


You gotta be kiddin me!


The Republicans have shown lately that they will eat their own. It doesn't get more hateful than that.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Carseller4
Whoever Bush picks should have the courtesy of an up or down vote.


Rhetoric aside, that is not the question. The question is what way will Bush go? With his religious fundies or with someone who will uphold Roe v. Wade?


Will Democrats give the same courtesy that the Republicans gave to Clinton and Ginsberg?


Were you around for Clinton's nominees?



There are people who think Roe v Wade is bad law. Selecting a nominee who disagrees with RVW should not automaticaly disqualify that person.

Not only was I around for Clintons nominees, I was around for Reagan's nominees. What is your point there?

Bush's 2nd term was partially about Supreme Court judges. The people have spoken and trust Bush to put a conservative on the bench.

Democrats are planning to destroy whoever Bush chooses, but that will work in Bush's favor because most people are tired of the attack politics of the left and will see right through it.

It is a shame but a selection of a Supreme Court judge has more impact on America than a Presidential election.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
It is a shame but a selection of a Supreme Court judge has more impact on America than a Presidential election.



With another soon to come you nailed that one for sure....



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
There are people who think Roe v Wade is bad law. Selecting a nominee who disagrees with RVW should not automaticaly disqualify that person.



The thing is, right now, the religious right is doing their very best to dominate Bush's agenda, especially in regard to this. They're going to demand he put someone opposed to Roe v. Wade on the bench. The question is, out of political survivability, will he throw them to the wolves on this?



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
It is a shame but a selection of a Supreme Court judge has more impact on America than a Presidential election.


It is not a shame. It is a testament to the power of the LAW.

The law outlasts every man.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
If anything it is good that a selection of a Sepreme Court Judge gets more people interested than a Presidential Election. The Judges will outlast the President, they can have a lot more say on important legal issues and they can change the way the Society is heading as has been seen in the past such as Brown vs the Board of Education and Brown Two.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I don't necessarily fear new conservative appointments. Not all their rulings are bad. I do fear abuse of power, though. If the possibility of it wasn't so very real, the founding fathers wouldn't have made it such an issue. Right now the GOP has a lock on all branches of the US government. In light of certain actions and happenings and the wholesale lack of accountability going on, I'd say we're in dangerous waters.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Bush is against overturning Roe, and the saps who voted for him have this idea that he's doing all he can to do so...when all he has to do is issue an executive order declaring it to be unconstitutional.

For starters, it violates the Tenth Amendment...whatever powers are not specifically granted to the federal government go to the states.

It violates the Fifth Amendment...the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

Bush the hypocrite doesn't like the Constitution anyway. He hates America--that much is plain.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Bush is against overturning Roe, and the saps who voted for him have this idea that he's doing all he can to do so...when all he has to do is issue an executive order declaring it to be unconstitutional.


But he would not do that.

The religious fundamentalists are going about this all wrong.They're actually mucking things up.

In the words of my friend Raoul, "Jesus, save me from your followers."



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
No, not Gonzales,

It looks like Mr. Gonzales is a yes, or may be, I guess Mr. Bush long time friend is so dear to him that he can not take insults directed to him.


It most be a "male thing"



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Nothing the Reps can do could outshine the Dems inability to operate within the civil guidelines that one should expect. They've already proved that since 2000.

As far as the pick for USSC judge replacement, I notice that we seem to be concerned about whether or not Roe-v-Wade would be upheld, and not whether or not the judge would be able to judge IAW with the constitution. Of course there's a fear that it would be a constitutionalist judge, as that would endanger Roe-v-Wade, along with many other left-wing activist pet concepts.

I wouldn't worry about it, though, you'll still be able to murder the unborn, they will not tamper with that. Additionally, as we've seen in the last couple weeks, no matter who is picked, they will continue to erode the rest of your perceived rights.

You folks worry too much. The downward spiral will not be stopped. For those of you who salivate at the thought of no absolute moral standard to restrict your hardened hearts, that should comfort you.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I totally believe in moral absolutes. I believe in what the Bible sez. You have no idea how often my liberal friends assuage my sinfulness (b/c they don't believe in the word). At the same time, I don't belive it s moral to disallow women to get a proper abortion. The fact of the matter is, as in prohibition, the offender will get his way and it can either be clean or it can be nasty.

I suppose the reason abortion is such as sticky issue is b/c it is such a personal one. Do I agree with abortion? Absolutely not. I won't go into how I see it. To be respectful of others. I think its an issue of the spirit which will be decide on that final day of judgement. You me and lampost won't have jack ham's say in what the final verdict is on anybody but ourselselves.

What I can't stand is the fact that if abortion was illegal, the poor chix would still muck themselves up for life and the rich gals would still get their secret abortions covertly funded by their wealthy to do's. That is beyond wrong. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.

That is what I cannot abide.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
While the fact that the rich will find ways to go around the justice system here on earth, they'll face the ultimate penalty later, just like the rest of us.
Still ,that does not mean that we cheapen life of all by making it ok to murder the very ones who are the most innocent and the most defenseless.
One of the most important things a constraining law does is reminds us what is right and what is wrong. To say that murder is ok in our society is to fail as a society to keep in mind that there are absolutes, and that murder is wrong.

There is no proper abortion. Every time there is one, a child dies. This, I assure you, is not what the constitution is all about. That is what a politically-active court system is about; getting things shoved into society that would never make it past the public's scrutiny.

It don't get no more personal than murder. Pardon the grammar.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
You know what's worse than that, though? When someone carries a child to term and then abandons it or abuses it. How do we reconsile ourselves to that? Who is going to step in and care for those children?

I'm not saying abortion is justified. Just that the implications are far deeper than just saying "Abortion is murder!"



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join