Join our e-mail list!
July 15, 2005|
The Supreme Court |
"We will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by legislating from the bench and try to remake the culture of America by court order." President George W. Bush said those words repeatedly as he campaigned for the presidency.
As I write this the media are reporting that Chief Justice Rehnquist, a victim of thyroid cancer, is again in and out of the hospital. His resignation from the Court may be imminent.
President Bush may have the opportunity to fulfill his campaign commitment and nominate not one but two Justices, and name a new Chief Justice who will not "legislate from the bench" and who will interpret the Constitution according to the original intent of the Framers.
If President Bush truly says what he means and means what he says, Alberto Gonzales doesn't qualify.
He doesn't qualify because his judicial philosophy contradicts the President's stated opposition to "judges who legislate from the bench." Alberto Gonzales is on record as being guided by stare decisis, a legal principle that says courts should avoid overruling existing precedent, such as the precedent set by the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings.
Jack Willke, M.D., president of the Life Issues Institute, said he heard Mr. Gonzales speak to a gathering of conservative leaders in 2003 and asked him whether stare decisis would prevail in reconsidering Roe v. Wade. "When he said 'yes,' there was a loud 'oooooooooh' intermingled with some very clear 'boos.' That is as clear as it gets." (The Washington Times, 7/7/05)
On November 11, 2004, after President Bush nominated Gonzales to be Attorney General, Joseph Farah published a WorldNet Daily column in which he commented on what happened at the same dinner mentioned by Dr. Willke. "The man picked by President Bush to be the next attorney general believes the Constitution is a living document and that only the nine black-robed brethren have sufficient understanding of the document to explain to the people what it means. I heard Alberto Gonzales make this statement with my own ears in a private dinner meeting two years ago. I was stunned. I was horrified.
"Gonzales let it be known he believes the Supreme Court actually makes law through its precedent-setting rulings."
Today, with the public furious about the recent Supreme Court ruling that exposes private property to seizure by governments for purposes of "economic development," citizens who may not be concerned about social and cultural issues like the right to life may want to let the President know they don't want him to nominate replacements for O'Connor and Rehnquist who believe rulings by the high court should not be overturned.
As for millions of pro-life Americans, without whose votes the President, and many Republicans at every level, would not be in office, we must remember what Alberto Gonzales said during his Attorney General confirmation hearings when he was asked by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) whether Gonzales would pledge to enforce Roe despite any personal disagreements he has with the decision. [It is unknown whether Gonzales has any personal disagreements with Roe.]
Far from expressing any personal disagreement with Roe, Gonzales answered in tones that suggest he considered it a settled issue.
"Of course, the Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy in our Constitution, and in Roe the court held that the right of privacy includes a woman's right to choose to have an abortion," he said. "A little over a decade ago, the court, in Casey, had an opportunity to revisit that issue. They made athey declined to overturn Roe, and of course made a new standard that any restriction that constituted an 'undue burden' on a woman's right to choose could not be sustained."
"My judgment," Gonzales concluded, "is that the court has had an opportunityample opportunitiesto look at this issue. It has declined to do so. And as far as I'm concerned, it is the law of the land and I will enforce it." (The Washington Post, 7/7/05)
Alberto Gonzales, or anyone else under consideration, who does not hold an original intent philosophy who does not believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of the Founding Fathers-who is not a "strict constructionist," is unacceptable as a nominee to the Supreme Court.
Please make your views known to President Bush and to your United States Senators.
President Bush, keep your promise. Appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas!
The White House
Comment Line: 202/456-1111
In addition, the Court will soon be asked to review a decision of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday, July 8, overturning the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act , which President Bush signed in November of 2003. A similar decision by the 4th Circuit last month overturning Virginia's partial-birth abortion ban is also ripe for Supreme Court review. Other partial-birth cases pending before the 2nd and 9th U.S. Circuits could be announced any day. With the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, the remaining Supreme Court Justices are split 4-4 on the constitutionality of partial-birth legislation. President Bush must nominate and the Senate must confirm a Justice who can be counted on to reconsider and reverse the Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which threw out partial-birth abortion bans that had been passed in 30 states.
RNC/Life - P.O. Box 618 - Alton, IL 62002
Or you may charge your contribution
on Master Card or Visa by calling 618/462-5415.
(Contributions are not tax-deductible)
Thank you very much for your support!
Republican National Coalition for Life Box 618 Alton Illinois 62002|
618-462-5415 Fax: 618-462-8909 E-mail