Gonzales on Roe and Stare Decisis
This morning I heard Laura Ingraham interviewing Robert Bork. She mentioned that she had a transcript of Alberto Gonzales telling some group that he believed Roe v. Wade should be upheld under the doctrine of stare decisis. Bork replied: “Oh, my God.”
I searched the Web for evidence of this. This is the closest thing I found:
Life Issues Institute president Dr. John C. Willke is warning pro-lifers to be wary of Bush chief counsel Alberto Gonzales. Twice, Dr. Willke has gotten the opportunity to ask Judge Gonzales direct questions about how he might rule on abortion-related cases, and he reports that the answers contradicted what most conservatives have been led to believe about the former Texas state Chief Justice. On one occasion, Willke asked, “Would you say that, regarding Roe v. Wade, stare decisis [Lat. “to stand by that which is decided”] would be governing here?” Gonzales answered “yes.” A couple months later, Willke got a chance to pose the question a different way: “Many of us feel that the Constitution does not speak to permissive abortion. Would you comment?” Gonzales’ answer: “The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.”
I echo the sentiments of the Clam: watch out for Gonzales.
UPDATE: Courtesy of commenter Andrew from Confirm Them comes a much better link on this issue. Thanks, Andrew.
Except I hate him more for the general approach to jurisprudence that final quotation indicates, and affirmative action, the modern America’s Jim Crow.
Angry Clam (f05866) — 7/6/2005 @ 6:44 pmStare decisis is explained in LACC American Government courses. When I read that, my response was identical to Mr. Bork’s.
Dude, that is ugly.
Juliette (a7d1ca) — 7/6/2005 @ 7:26 pmThe full story avout what Gonzales allegedly said is at this link:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8001
It will be interesting to see if any denials are forthcoming from the A.G. If this stuff is true, then the Attorney General really would be one of the last people who ought to be a Supreme Court justice. I’m waiting to see if there’s a denial.
I think it was Louis XIV who said “L’etat c’est moi.” In other words, “I am the state.” Would you want Louis XIV on the Supreme Court?
Andrew (d074ca) — 7/6/2005 @ 8:00 pmIs there EVER a principled (there’s that WORD again) way of applying stare decisis?
I mean really, ever?
Christopher Cross (618f3b) — 7/6/2005 @ 9:15 pmRemember who appointed Souter? Strong family resemblence?
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 7/6/2005 @ 9:18 pmLooks like the confirmation fight will be about litmus tests and ideologies all right.
actus (137337) — 7/6/2005 @ 10:22 pmNext time my son asks “why” and I’m too lazy to explain why, remind me to say “stare decisis” rather than “because I said so.” They both mean the same thing, of course, but it sounds better in the original Latin.
Xrlq (158f18) — 7/6/2005 @ 10:58 pmAs far as I’m concerned ‘stare decisis’ is nothing but a pathetic excuse to immortalize wretched rulings from the high court.
Jurists should be required to always go straight to the Constitution. Any ruling relying on that external to the Constitution should be considered null and void on its face. Any such ruling that relies on stringing together a bunch of excrement using ‘stare decisis’ from previous bone-headed decisions, is an utter sham.
clark smith (b81b25) — 7/7/2005 @ 12:30 am“This morning I heard Laura Ingraham interviewing Robert Bork.”
Damn, I wish I would have heard that interview. I respect no legal mind as I respect Bork’s.
clark smith (b81b25) — 7/7/2005 @ 12:32 amXrlq, your comment #7 is funny. It would probably be wise for folks to acknowledge that stare decisis is not a completely stupid doctrine. The problem is that the Supreme Court has sometimes applied it badly. Here’s what Brandeis sensibly said on the subject:
Ironically, the Court’s most rigid and unswerving application of stare decisis has been precisely in the due process area, in Justice O’Connor’s Casey opinion. Watch out for nominees who agree that Casey is “settled” (e.g. McConnell and Clement).
Andrew (8144c2) — 7/7/2005 @ 5:43 amAround the Blogosphere
temporary filler while impliomenting trackbacks…
Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis) (807fbc) — 7/7/2005 @ 6:15 amIronically, the stare decisis comment isn’t half as offensive to me as this is…
Did he say, “The Constitution is nothing, the Supreme Court is the absolute source of authority.”
That’s what it sounded like to me.
Lane Beneke (534807) — 7/7/2005 @ 6:40 amAlberto Gonzales
Alberto Gonzales must never be allowed onto the Supreme Court for this one, single statement:
“The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.”
MuD & PHuD (59ce3a) — 7/7/2005 @ 7:36 amSo, Mr. Gonzales, where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the power …
Lane, I also found that offensive.
See http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=807
Andrew (19d347) — 7/7/2005 @ 8:58 amOne candidate for the Supreme Court….
….that I would reject is Alberto Gonzales, and it’s not because he would uphold Roe v. Wade. I really don’t care that much about Roe v. Wade, but I…
Media Lies (11ee8e) — 7/7/2005 @ 11:43 amRove tells Novak Rehnquist to retire
Post title just funnin’ y’all. Seriously, I do not have a big problem with Robert Novak, most of the time. However, sometimes he is just a little bit too much to take.
Mark in Mexico (59ce3a) — 7/7/2005 @ 8:15 pm