Thread: Gonzales: 'Constitution Is What the Supreme Court Says'

This is why this imbecile has no business get confirmed to the SCOTUS.
This is what Bush has in mind about strict constructionists.

http://www.cnsnews.com/

Gonzales: 'Constitution Is What the Supreme Court Says'
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 07, 2005

(Correction: Fixes the spelling of Dr. John C. Willke's name in second and following paragraphs.)

(CNSNews.com) - Comments made by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in his former capacity as White House counsel, have some conservatives warning that he would be the wrong choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is," Gonzales responded in the summer of 2003 when asked by Dr. John Willke, president of the Life Issues Institute, to comment on whether the document that created the U.S. government addressed the issue of abortion.

Gonzales, a long-time legal adviser to George W. Bush, both when Bush was governor of Texas and since he's been president, continues to be one of the top names mentioned for the Supreme Court position that O'Connor announced on Friday she was vacating.

The exchange between Willke and Gonzales took place during a White House meeting with a group of conservative business leaders. The Third Branch Conference, a coalition of mostly conservative groups interested in the nominations process, emailed Willke's transcript of the comments to conservatives Wednesday, along with the record of a question-and-answer session from an earlier meeting Gonzales attended in May of 2003.

During that exchange, Willke -- who is also president of the International Right to Life Federation and a past president of the National Right to Life Committee -- asked Gonzales more directly about his views on abortion.

Willke: We're hearing conflicting reports about your position on abortion. Can you tell us where you stand?

Gonzales: As a judge, I have to make judgments in conformity with the laws of our nation.

Willke: Would you say that, regarding Roe v. Wade, stare decisis would be governing here?

Gonzales: Yes.

Stare decisis is Latin for "to stand on the decisions" and is used to describe the current American judicial philosophy that once an issue has been decided by the Supreme Court, future justices will not reconsider the finding.

Asked if he was certain that the transcripts of Gonzales' remarks were accurate, Willke was emphatic.

"I sat down with a number of other lead people who had attended that meeting and I said, 'Let's get this data right down. We don't want to be misquoting this thing.' And we did get the verbatim thing down, which everyone agreed to," Willke told Cybercast News Service Wednesday. "What has been printed is a verbatim (transcript)."

Willke said Gonzales' stated belief that the meaning of the Constitution was subject to the whims of the members of the high court "sent a chill" up his spine.

"The discussion was about Roe v. Wade and the legality of abortion," Willke explained. "And when, in that context, he says, 'it is what the Supreme Court says it is,' ... [it] is also a very chilling statement ... that 'this is unchangeable, this is stare decisis, this is one we will respect, this is one we won't change.' That's the context in which it was stated."

President Bush campaigned in both 2000 and 2004 on the promise to choose nominees "in the mold of" conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Both jurists are regularly identified as "strict constructionists," meaning that they do not believe justices have the power to "interpret" a new meaning to the words of the Constitution.

President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to choose such a nominee Wednesday while traveling in Denmark.

"I'll pick people who, one, can do the job, and people who are honest, people who are bright and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from," Bush said.

But the president also defended his long-time friend and advisor, Gonzales.

"He's under -- he's being criticized. I don't like it when a friend gets criticized. I'm loyal to my friends," Bush said. "And all of a sudden this fellow, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire. And so, do I like it? No, I don't like it at all."

But Willke said the criticism was not a personal attack on Gonzales as the president seemed to perceive it.

"That's erroneous. The stuff that you are reading in front of you right now is not an ad hominem attack against him," Willke said. "It's a simple factual statement of things he's done."

Willke stressed that he did not initiate the most recent distribution of Gonzales' two-year-old comments and that he still supports President Bush.

"Right now, I trust Mr. Bush. He has said that he will nominate people like Scalia and Thomas who interpret the actual words of the Constitution and don't make up new laws," Willke said. "I'm confident that he'll do that, and I don't mean to be critical of the president at this point."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the president is "going to hone in over the next few weeks on a handful of nominees." He would not speculate about when the nomination would be announced or who, among "more than a half dozen ... individuals from all walks of life," was being considered for the post.

"The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is," Gonzales responded in the summer of 2003 when asked by Dr. John Willke

No!

The Constitution is what the Constitution says it is.

Hey Bush I don’t like Gonzales, he obviously doesn’t understand our laws. The Constitution is our law not what the Supreme Court says it is. I guess it is true that you find your friends with like minds or the lack thereof.

with like minds or the lack thereof

I vote for "lack thereof."

This Gonzales is a bit too arrogant for my taste.

The Constitution says what it says, not what you WANT it to say.

Maybe we can find a quiet Municipal court that he would be qualified for.

Maybe we can find a quiet Municipal court that he would be qualified for.

He doesn’t qualify for the Peoples Court.

The senate was told to tone down their criticism on this by President Bush, and it appears they are complying.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

The senate was told to tone down their criticism on this by President Bush, and it appears they are complying.

Maybe, just maybe, someday they will grow a spine and represent their constituents.

Maybe, just maybe, someday they will grow a spine and represent their constituents.

Maybe it will happen in Fantasyland.
It doesn't appear to be happening here.

Gonzales's quote comes from the notion of what is now being contended or wanted --- that the U.S. Constitution is a living Document --- able to be altered and twisted which is a wrongful problem. The Constitution can only be changed by Amendments.


Somebody please send this Mexican invader home, where he can then use his great talent (as Bush says) to fix the corruption of his broken Country....... (Oh, that's right, he's innocently working (damaging) hard in the U.S. to send those American Dollars back home to mexico.)

No. It's going to Bush's liking. We are now letting Mexico into the most sensitive reaches of U.S. Government. How many Infiltraitors (mexicans) do we now have in the Congress's Hispanic Caucus. Gonzales can now make the Constitution say,' There is no such thing as an illegal Alien, simply anyone can enter the U.S. at will, and Mexico can enter the U.S. with unlimited numbers of Peoples'.

Good point Mr. Magoo - The Constitution is what the Constitution says it is.

Gonzales's quote should be used against him endlessly.

First, the President should not have made those statements. Gonzales is a grown man. He doesn't need a wimp ass like Bush defending him.

Second, the "stare decisis" theory is more or less the standing rule of law. When the Supreme Court rules, it establishes a precedent that now becomes the interpreted law. UNFORTUNATELY, they haven't been getting it right. They made a HUGE MISTAKE on the education of foreign nations. This is so clearly wrong and so clearly beyond any of the words in the Constitution and so far beyond the rule of reason that it was clearly an activist decision. When the Supreme Court ruled on the property rights issue in Connecticut, this was another example of activism by judges writing new law, not interpreting what he Constitution says.

Normally, "stare decisis" should be correct, but not when the Court is not doing its job.