Open Mouth--Insert Foot

Hat tip to Southern Appeal for this one. Alberto Gonzales truly knows how to win conservatives' hearts, doesn't he? HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE has this Email from C.J. Willkie Referenced by the Times. He describes remarks The USAG made at a meeting with business leaders last year. Among his more unfortunate observations:

Approximately two months later, I was privileged to be part of a smaller group of business executives at a meeting in the White House. One of the people who spoke to our group was Alberto Gonzales. I was again able to ask a question:

Q: Judge Gonzales, it’s well known that the Clinton administration had a very clear and consistent litmus test in regard to judicial nominations. If that person was not pro-abortion, they were not nominated. In light of this, do you ask your nominees what their position is on abortion?

A: No, we do not. We judge them on a very broad basis of conservatism and constitutional construction.

Q: Many of us feel that the Constitution does not speak to permissive abortion. Would you comment?

A: The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

There were no audible “oooohs” this time, but as the day went on, including the social evening, a significant number of those attending individually sought me out. Each expressed their deep reservation about this man being nominated to the Supreme Court.

Funny, I thought the constitution was whatever the constitution said. I thought the constitution was determined by we the people, not nine life-tenured lawyers. I thought the Supreme Court determined whether laws were constitutional, not whether the constitution itself was the constitution. If Mr. Gonzales truly holds this view of the Judiciary, he has a poor understanding of the law. The purpose of the judiciary in the American republic is to interprete the law and apply judgements in regards to it. It is not to define the constitution. It is not to legislate. Such nefarious legal activity undermines the separation of powers. How representative can government be if the elected representatives of the people can longer legislate the laws their constituents want? How can America honor subsidiarity if nine black-robed lawyers can nationalize contraversial policies under the guise of ensuring constitutionality?

Mr. Gonzales remarks imply that he approves of the most inappropriate practices of the Supreme Court. He would stand by it's most legally troubling and constitutionally questionable decisions in the last forty years. He gives no indication of how dangerous an activist Supreme Court is for the Republic. He clearly is not fit to serve on the bench of the SCOTUS.

President Bush says that he doesn't like it when his friends are attacked. With all due respect to the President, the concerns that conservatives have with the possible nomination of AG Gonzales are not personal. They certainly aren't personal attacks. The President's dismissal of those concerns with an all-but-stated "back off!" is inappropriate. He should judge Mr. Gonzales on the merits of his own perspectives regarding the law, not whether or not the Attorney General has demonstrated personal loyalty to him.

The nomination of Justice O'Connor's replacement is too important. She must not be replaced with a Judicial imperialist. A justice should sit on the bench of the Supreme Court, not an unelected legislature. Mr. Gonzales must not become a nominee to the High Court. Save that honor for someone that will honor the true purpose of a Supreme Court Justice. Save it for someone that will interprete the constitution, not implement his or her own ideology. Save it for a true Justice.