All the talk about the potential that Gonzales is being groomed to replace Rhenquist on SCOTUS got me wondering what effect his replacement would realistically have on the ideological tradgectory of the court.
This article is the best I could find on short notice.
Pro-lifers not thrilled with Gonzales choice
Bush's pick for attorney general upheld abortion on Texas court
Pro-life activists are criticizing President Bush's choice of Alberto Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft as attorney general, worrying the White House counsel will not aggressively uphold the administration's anti-abortion stance.
Gonzales is a former member of the Texas Supreme Court, where he voted to allow a teenager to get an abortion without notifying her parents, circumventing the notification law in that state. At the time he criticized the position taken by his colleague on the court, Priscilla Owen, who voted against allowing the abortion. Gonzales said dissenting from his majority opinion "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
His comments later were used by Democrats in the U.S. Senate who blocked Owen's confirmation to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Chuck Baldwin, a pastor and columnist, slammed Gonzales, citing the Texas case and stating, "Gonzales is anything but pro-life."
Anyone who would like to see Roe vs. Wade remain the law of the land should think hard before opposing Gonzales if he is ever put foreward for a Supreme Court bid. A Bush nomination of Gonzales resulting in a Democratic filibuster would virtually guarantee a strong anti-choice Justice would be seated as a replacement.
That logic is pretty simple. Should Gonzales, who has appeared in the past to be moderate on the issue of abortion, be blocked by a Democratic filibuster, Bush would have little to hold him back from essentially shooting the moon with a solid reactionary candidate as a replacement. The Democrats, having used the filibuster on one candidate would become increasingly more vulnerable to charges of obstructionism. Bush would certainly be well positioned to win that battle--especially if that should occur under the current congressional configuration.
Gonzales, IMO, is a crook and a shill and responible for setting the the country back perhaps 80 years when it comes to Human Rights. I think we should on principle reject him and that is what I will be pushing for when the time comes. However, we should still understand where we will stand on our agenda if we do so. We should oppose Gonzales, but that may be exactly what Bush and his culural conservative supporters want us to do.