How many times have we heard the hypocrite complain of "activist judges?" If he doesn't like activist judges, then why the hell is he nominating them?
Not only that, we have an AG who blatently lies:
"Gonzales, May 9, 2005: Judges disagree from time to time on particular issues. . . . That doesn't in any way detract from my view that she would make a terrific a judge on the 5th Circuit. I've never accused her of being an activist judge.
Owen and Gonzales disagreed over whether a minor seeking an abortion was "mature" and "sufficiently well informed" enough for a judge to allow her to have an abortion without notifying a parent under Texas law. A 6-3 majority ruled in favor of the girl - a senior in high school at the time. Gonzales was in the majority.
Owen, however, said the girl wasn't mature or well informed enough because she intended "to continue to seek and take support from her parents" and had "not thoughtfully considered her alternatives," even though she had talked about adoption with a counselor and a teacher. Gonzales thought that interpretation was too restrictive and went beyond the actual language of the of the Texas law, which requres parental notification of abortions but also allows judges to grant exceptions, or "bypasses," under certain circumstances. Gonzales wrote:
Gonzales, June 22, 2000: ...to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
Lawyers are trained to see fine distinctions, so perhaps Gonzales will explain another time how a judge who performs an act of "unconsionable . . . judicial activism" is not an "activist judge." Meanwhile, readers will just have to puzzle that out for themselves."
http://www.factcheck.org/article325.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
