Skip to main content

Gonzales is not acceptable for the Supreme Court

As a Latino, I care more about life and about values, than about seeing another Latino on the Supreme Court. Mr. President, you can "represent" us Latinos by representing our pro-life, pro-family, and value driven traditions. Alberto Gonzales is not acceptable for the Supreme Court.

Following is a collection of thoughts I have previously written on Gonzales, that are now once again very relevant.

From "Gonzales--Setting Aside the Constitution" --
The reason conservatives will not support Gonzales, and the primary reason I am against his nomination, is the fact he has made statements about setting aside the Constitution. This is a serious concern, and the primary qualification I am hoping Bush will expect in whoever he nominates--someone who will be an originalist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice said it best. The GOP will lose a lot of money and a bad choice bad Bush would only serve to strengthen by default Hillary's 2008 bid.
Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group formed to support Bush judicial nominations, questioned whether a conservative nominee would alienate moderates. "That's nonsense," he said. "The worst thing the president could do for his party's 2006 election hopes - and especially for (Sen.) Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania - is to go with a nominee who is seen as less principled by conservatives. That would completely dry up the funding. That would completely dry up the enthusiasm."
Our prayers are with the president, and our hope is that he would make a wise decision, taking into consideration the future of our nation and the will of the people that put him into office.
In "Alberto Gonzales Unlikely," I write about a Weekly Standard article where Fred Barns argues that Gonzales stopped being a contender, and would not be a candidate in the case of a second opening on the court.
Fred Barnes [reported] on the Weekly Standard that Gonzales is probably no longer a contender for the court, absent a change-of-mind. This, of course, is good news to me (a Hispanic), but they way Supreme Court predictions have been going lately, I would not trust it until its all over. My hope is that Bush will NOT make a decision based on either race or gender, but qualifications and commitment to uphold the constitution in its original intent.
THOUGH HE DEFENDED Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against conservative critics, President Bush now appears highly unlikely to nominate Gonzales to replace retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Nor is Gonzales expected to be chosen to fill a second vacancy on the high court should Chief Justice William Rehnquist or another justice steps down in the near future.
I only hope this is still true today, as it was when it was published a couple months ago. When rumors started flying about Rehnquist possibly stepping down, LifeNews.com reported on the possibility of a several pro-life nominees being mentioned as possibilities, including Samuel Alito, a federal appeals court judge in Philadelphia. I wonder if he is still on the list?

I'll end this post with my comments from Friday July 1st, titled "First things First" --
To me, the principles of the constitution are more important that racial loyalty. I am a United States citizen first, a Hispanic second. I have a problem with Alberto Gonzalez, first of all because my understanding is that Roe-vs-Wade distorted and beyond and outside the intent and guidelines of the constitution. There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Personally, I do not understand how he can morally justify abortion. But, I know many do. Nevertheless, I voted for Bush, and expect him to nominate a conservative, originalist judge to the court. Gonzales would not be such man, if it is true that his record has been in favor of abortion rights. Maybe I'm missing information. You tell me.
Tags: , , Supreme Court, SCOTUS, Politics, News

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation. Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where …