AG Gonzales for Supreme Ct? NO WAY!

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CentralTexas

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
1,235
Location
Austin Texas
On the record as being for assault weapons bans etc.
Better start calling the Whitehouse now. Too bad the NRA will probably again sit on their hands....
CT :cuss: :banghead: :fire:
 
It would fit the bill, lol Gonzalez tipping the scales in court. Anyone still feel their state is safe?
 
When you call GWB about Gonzales A couple other thing to tell him.
1-Don't want the Patroit Act
2-Want the borders closed
3-Don't want CAFTA
4-Before you hangup be sure to thank him for pushing all the pro gun bills for us

Need the White House telephone number? I'm sure he will listen to the common workin person. Hasn't he since he got back in? LOL
 
Gonzales has a hell of a story of accomplishment though even if I dont agree with him. So does that guy Estrada
 
LOL - people beating up on Bush, and he hasn't said a word about who he will pick. Does Bush-hate give psychic powers too? More like psychotic powers.

He's an idea - let us WAIT for him to nominate someone, THEN complain about it. I'm sure anyone he picks will be wrong anyway, right?
 
LOL Seen enough he has done
1- Patroit Act
2- Campaign Reform (So much for free speech)
3-Call the Minutemen Vigilanties
4-Push for his guest worker crap ( amnesty for illegals)
5-Pushing for CAFTA ( If you like NAFTA you'll love this)
Why would anyone need to see more unless they are blind
Oh yea making Gonzales AG to start with. Know he is Pro Gun and in favor of sovereignty for our country. LOLBoy glad we got all the conservatives elected in Nov. Aren't you? Whhat gets me the most I to voted for all the jerks. Won't do that again i'm smart enough to know when i've been sold down the tubes. See allot of people try and defend GWB GUess they can't see the loss of freedoms we have had under him. Hey I always thought that a conservative was in favor of smaller goverment. Better tell GWB what a conservative should stand for lol
 
"He's an idea - let us WAIT for him to nominate someone, THEN complain about it. I'm sure anyone he picks will be wrong anyway, right?"

That's actually pretty fair, if you are a fan of GWB it is hard to see much positive stuff said, so it must seem like everyone is just blindly against him.

So I'm not saying anything bad about him, just that Gonzales has no place in a higher court.
He supports anti-gun legislation.
If there are enough very very anti-gun people in the SC they will then decide to hear a case on the 2nd amendment, and they will read it the same way the read 'public good' in the 5th amendment - ie they'll read it to mean the opposite.
He has shown disrespect for law and customs, as shown by AG jail in Iraq, which is in large part due to his decisions.

Maybe I'm wrong on some points, if so I'd like learn it. But as far as I know right now, this would be the worst possible appointment to the SC. Someone who has tasted the thrill of breaking the rules and making new ones, and has been rewarded for it - and they are not going to break rules you want them to.
 
Just a guess, but GWB will find some previously unmentioned conservative-leaning moderate to replace O'Connor. All of the news discussion I have seen certainly suggests the expectation that a moderate will be replaced with a moderate.

Unfortunately, I suspect the Republicans will bend over backwards trying to find a moderate so that they can make the Democrats happy and get the nominee confirmed easily. And the Democrats will demand a candidate with "mainstream views" (e.g. a flaming liberal who swears allegiance to Roe v. Wade) and will threaten a filibuster until they get their way.

My $0.02: I wish the Republicans would dig in and go toe to toe with the Democrats to get a strict-constructionist to replace O'Connor - and another one to replace Rehnquist. It would be an ugly fight, but it could be won. In the long run, a solid strict-constructionist majority on the Supreme Court would be better for the country than the Republicans retaining control of Congress and the Presidency. However, I expect our esteemed Senators to do exactly what they think best ensures their political careers rather than doing what would be best for the country.
 
I use the term "spinelessrepublicans" for a reason. Very shortly we will see if Bush wants republicans to continue in the majority. He's a lame duck. Everyone else in the republican party is not. If the spinelessrepublican base has had it right up to here (like I think) Bush would be well advised to pander to his own party. Then again, who knows what kind of deal elements of the spinelessrepublican party will cut. Trent Lott has absolutely no credibility yet he's back in the leadership game.

Yes, it is advisable to wait until Bush nominates a judge before commencing criticism. Its just the party has such a sterling history of screwing up either for no reason or at an inopportune time. Political novices just plain expect 'em to screw the pooch. . . . . again.
 
LOL Seen enough he has done
1- Patroit Act
2- Campaign Reform (So much for free speech)
3-Call the Minutemen Vigilanties
4-Push for his guest worker crap ( amnesty for illegals)
5-Pushing for CAFTA ( If you like NAFTA you'll love this)
Click to expand...

You left of "No Child Left Behind"
 
LOL Seen enough he has done
1- Patroit Act
2- Campaign Reform (So much for free speech)
3-Call the Minutemen Vigilanties
4-Push for his guest worker crap ( amnesty for illegals)
5-Pushing for CAFTA ( If you like NAFTA you'll love this)
Click to expand...

Homeland Security, TSA, et al.

Don't forget he swore to sign the AWB and supported renewing it.

In the long run, a solid strict-constructionist majority on the Supreme Court would be better for the country than the Republicans retaining control of Congress and the Presidency.
Click to expand...

Gee, I know this sounds like an off the wall thought... but why not find a strict Constitutionalist? (Definitely not the same thing as a constructionist)
 
but why not find a strict Constitutionalist? (Definitely not the same thing as a constructionist)
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll bite.

A strict constructionist is a judge who resolves constitutional cases solely on the basis of the language and original understanding of the constitutional text.

What's a strict Constitutionalist?
 
Gonzales was parrotting Bush's opinion on the AWB - so why is Bush such a good guy?

So calling the White House about gun issues probably ranks you with the guys calling to get Bush to do something about immigration.

Bush doesn't care about such stuff. It's money for the wealthy and trying to figure out how Rummy went dummy in planning Iraq.
 
In the long run, a solid strict-constructionist majority on the Supreme Court would be better for the country than the Republicans retaining control of Congress and the Presidency. However, I expect our esteemed Senators to do exactly what they think best ensures their political careers rather than doing what would be best for the country.
Click to expand...
x10

As to waiting until GWB nominates someone before sending him your opinions, here's my reason why we should NOT wait: "Political capital." Once he nominates someone, he has put his neck out there, and he suffers considerable loss of face if his nominee is defeated, or if he is forced to withdraw the nomination.

IMHO it is far better to remind Mr. President of that before he puts a name forward, and to suggest to him that his own political standing will be better served by advancing a candidate who will not encounter serious oppostion from conservatives as well as from liberals.

After the name has been announced is too late. From that moment forward it's all about theatrics.
 
AG Gonzales: Closet liberal waiting until he has reach the top of the ladder
to come out. :barf:
 
Bush has been lifted up all his life by "the invisible hand." So, remarkably, has Gonzales. Could it in fact be the same hand?

Bush is nothing if not stubborn: he will pick Gonzales "because it's the right thing to do."

I will be delighted to find myself wrong.
 
Okay, I'll bite.

A strict constructionist is a judge who resolves constitutional cases solely on the basis of the language and original understanding of the constitutional text.

What's a strict Constitutionalist?
Click to expand...

It's my pet term as there doesn't seem to be another term that applies for someone that intends to follow the Constitution, as it was intended. According to Wikipedia and various dictionaries, the everything before the "and" is correct. Allegedly, a strict constructionist would not read into the "original understanding" of the Constitution but rather exactly what it says in print. That is, not look into the 'original understanding' of the Constitution by researching additional material from the time it was written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

"Adherents look strictly at the text in question rather than relying on metaphysical ideas such as natural law, or by trying to glean legislative intent from contemporaneous commentaries or legislative debate."

"The underlying rationale of strict constructionism is that if a legislature truly wants to enact a particular law, they are quite capable of writing it down in plain English and passing it, and it is not the job of judge to play around with legal fictions or psychoanalysis to reconstruct what the legislature's subconscious intent could have been."

In other words, a strict constructionalist would not be inclined to read the Federalist Papers or any other material written by the Founding Fathers, where they go more in depth on what they wrote down in paper.

Small semantics really, but I notice a lot of so-called "strict constructionists" regularly ignore the Constitution and very much its original intents.
 
Yea, I still want to know who juiced is exit from an 8 year contract with the Air Force. You just don't decide to go to another school once you are in an academy. Who signed off at the academy? Who agreed to it in the Air Force? Who are the relevant political figures involved?

The dood is a perfumed prince.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Why do I belong to the NRA????
Replies
19
Views
784
Zrex
Z
C
  • Locked
Gonzales supports the AWB
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
5K
longeyes
L
H
  • Locked
GW & AG Gonzales want 1993 Crime Bill Permanent
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
fallingblock
F
W
  • Locked
AG nominee supports assault weapons ban
Replies
10
Views
581
Ironbarr
I
C
  • Locked
NRA-ILA, useless.....
Replies
14
Views
855
Brett Bellmore
B
Back
Top