Reply With Quote
orale
Alberto Gonzales chosen to succeed John Ashcroft
orale
Que bueno! And yes, I support the choice because he's Hispanic and one bad mofo.
Well, those are certainly germain qualities in an Attorney General. Could it be he's also a of a qualified person?
Based on what little information I know on Alberto Gonzales, I prefer him over John Ashcroft.
A step in the right (read: correct) direction for Bush, in my opinion.
Keeps his ass off the Supreme Court. Bravo.
Now, watch the President nominate Ashcroft for the Supreme Court. << Again, tongue firmly planted in cheek, ex.
Supposedly, Ashcroft had his arm twisted for four years to implement the Bush agenda. Which is it?
Did I say he wasn't qualified? Of course he is..and he kinda looks like me too.
The law is the law.
Perhaps you guys would have been happy if he were a Democrat. Automatically better! Right?
Where'd you hear that tripe?
When it comes to judges and Sherif's and stuff..I don't think political party should matter because the law is the law...when interpreted correctly.
I've voted for many republican judges and DA's in the past.
See the Ashcroft resignation thread. This was given as a possible reason.
Top post on page 2
Eh, most cabinet folks only last one term. They're all leaders in their area of expertise, and cash in while the cashing's good.
I find some relief in the idea of Gonzalez as AG as opposed to Associate Justice. His decisions while on the Texas Supreme Court were, uh, curious.
Curious? Could you give a couple examples?
And there's this . . . . straight from a Drudge Link
For instance, Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy - essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought out in the lower courts - of detaining certain terrorism suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts.
He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. That position drew fire from human rights groups, which said it helped led to the type of abuses uncovered in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Some conservatives also have quietly questioned Gonzales' credentials on core social issues. And he once was a partner in a Houston law firm which represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron.
I'll need to study up on this vato to see where he stands.
I have to say I don't see anything wrong this. If breaking bones, humiliation, etc. is what it takes to save one American life (even NbaDunce's), then do what it takes.He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. That position drew fire from human rights groups, which said it helped led to the type of abuses uncovered in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Here are a couple that come to mind:Curious? Could you give a couple examples?
1. In Grapevine Excavation, Inc. v. Maryland Lloyds, 35 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2000), then-Justice Gonzales wrote a concurring opinion in which he would have held that an insured is not en led to recover attorney's fees from its insurer based on a breach of contract claim. The practical effect of such a conclusion would permit insurers to deny virutally any claim and force the insured to file a lawsuit, claiming breach of contract, if it is to have any hope of obtaining insurance benefits. But the insured would have a great disincentive to file suit, because it would be forced to cover its own fees. You might not think that's all that abnormal, but consider a situation where a family has very little money as it is, suffers an injury that would be covered by an insurance policy, but can vindicate its right to coverage under the insurance policy only by incurring a large amount of debt in the hope of winning (knowing that it's unlikely to be able to afford a better lawyer than the insurance company can) a breach of contract action. In a normal contract situation, the party who breached the contract would, by law, be responsible for the other side's attorneys fees, but Justice Gonzales (had he had his way) would have exempted insurers from such a requirement.
2. Justice Gonzales also held that the jury must consider the negligence of the injured person (contributory negligence) even when there was no evidence to suggest that the injured person had been negligent, and even when the claim against the product manufacturer made the manufacturer liable regardless of its mental state. To simplify, the law permits a plaintiff to recover for injuries caused by certain product defects without proving negligence by the product's manufacturer. In this decision, Gonzales decided that even though the manufacturer could be held liable regardless of its intentions, that the manufacturer could be absolved of some or all liability if the plaintiff was negligent. But in the particular case, there was no evidence, save absolute conjecture, about what the plaintiff had done -- the plaintiff had died at the scene, and nobody was there when the accident (a truck backing up and crushing the plaintiff) occurred. In practical effect, Gonzales decided that conjecture (which is not evidence) about the plaintiff's actions could be enough to preclude recovery -- he bailed out manufacturers by placing a burden on the plaintiff to disprove his own negligence.
There are others, but those are two that come to mind.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 11-10-2004 at 03:40 PM.
I know it may sound crazy, but I think some of the terrorists have the same analogy. Beheadings included.
Yes, let's never mind our Cons ution.If breaking bones, humiliation, etc. is what it takes to save one American life (even NbaDunce's), then do what it takes.
Right-wingers don't give a about the Cons ution. Look at the Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2. All this legislating from the bench crap from them is bull . It's Ok to interpret the cons ution as long as you interpret it the way they want it interpreted - that is what they mean by legislating.
Fascists. All of them.
Now don't get your self banned by trashing completely good threads peudo-dan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
