Republican Relativism

So it looks like Judge Patricia Owen's nomination to the appellate courts will be sent to the Senate floor. Opponents to her nomination take great pleasure in citing the judgment of Bush favorite, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The Gonzales cite comes from the time when both Gonzales and Owen served on the TX Supreme Court. They heard a case involving abortion and the rights of a minor to obtain the abortion without parental notification. The law stated that the minor had to be mature enough to understand the consequences of having an abortion. In the case in question, the majority opinion was that the minor did have the requisite maturity. But Owens and two of her colleagues disagreed. Gonzales responded to their minority position by declaring that they're opposition was "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

Ah, the US Attorney General has identified a Bush judicial nominee as a judicial activist. Huh.

Of course, this is awkward for Gonzales and he undoubtedly fidgets and squirms every time he is quoted. It's not easy to disassociate from statements made from the bench. But Gonzales has found a way. He's claiming that he didn't really mean that Owens was a judicial activist. All he meant was that if he had made the judgment they did, then he would have been a judicial activist. But just because that's true for him doesn't mean it's true for the other judges.

Wha?

Let me get this straight. If Gonzales interprets the law one way, it's judicial activism. That means he's imposing his moral views on the law, effectively rewriting the law to match them. But if other judges interpret the law in the exact same way, it's not. The real message here is that the law is relative. Or Republicans are. I think it's the latter.

Comments

[wanda]

Oh, now I get that whole democracy of relativism thing.
I love the way these people (Rice, Arnie, now Gonzales) are suddenly backtracking. If it were Kerry they'd calling this crap flip-flopping. I guess only weepugs are allowed to change their minds.

[Mick]

All arguments made by radical Republicans like Gonzales are momentary fillips whose only purpose is to belittle or ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. They follow a standard formula, and the targets change with the situation. There is no intention to tell the truth, make a meaningful statement of belief, or lay out a legitimate position. It's about winning the argument. That's all.

We need to get over the idea that these people mean anything they say. It's all posturing. They're what my grandfather would have called 'blowhards'. They'll say anything at all to win, and the exact opposite 5 minutes later if that's what it takes to win a different argument, a different battle.

We need to keep harping on this until the people who don't understand it start getting a clue.

[D Beyer]

I just want to know what is so bad about Patricia Owens. She is a well qualified judge, from one of the largest states in the union, and she has in no instance issued an opinion that broke with applicable legal standards. If the her opposition is concerned that she will overturn current Supreme Court precedent respecting abortion, then they should be reminded that a member of the lower federal judiciary lacks the power to do so. Only the Supreme Court can overule itself. The immense fear associated with her nomination leads me to deduce something about how her opposition interprets the role of judges. Could someone please explain to me a reason for this resistance? Preferably one that is grounded in fact and could realistically be more detrimental to The Federal Court System that allowing seats to remain unfilled. This is open to any takers.

[zxzxzx]

I always heard something from my neighbor
شات الخليج
شات الحب
شات السعودية
I always heard something from my neighbor

[zxzxzx]

I always heard something from my neighbor
شات الخليج
شات الحب
شات السعودية
I always heard something from my neighbor