Comments on: Did Alberto Gonzales Say Priscilla Owen is an Activist?

By: Who Can Really Say?

Who Can Really Say? — Tue, 24 May 2005 00:19:03 +0000

Fillibuster Compromise If this agreement is worth the paper it's written on, then damn, that's gotta be some expensive paper. Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in...

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Sat, 21 May 2005 02:38:24 +0000

Lt. -- you mean the "flunkie" who graduated at the top of her law school class (and surely did better in spelling than you)? And are you referring to Dick Cheney, or LON CHANEY. The eye opener is in your comment, numbnuts.

By: Jim Rhoads

Jim Rhoads — Fri, 20 May 2005 20:06:24 +0000

Clearly correct, James. The issue in front of the Senate is Owen's qualifications. She is qualified. That should end it. Trying to play gotcha word games should not carry the day.

By: jwbrown1969

jwbrown1969 — Fri, 20 May 2005 19:23:49 +0000

Along the same lines as Anderson's comment, I would like to see more support for he on the specific charges. However, they do that and they will spend all their time answering garbage.

By: Lt bell

Lt bell — Fri, 20 May 2005 18:28:41 +0000

Activist?

More likely a sap for some big corperation or
another religious extremist, most of the administration flunkies are one or the other -
check out Cheny's boy bolton for an eye opener

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 20 May 2005 18:15:01 +0000

Right. But for some reason, during his confirmation hearings, he didn't make that very obvious point. Look at the letter that Bashman links to. It's very, very odd. Bashman's summary of its logic is spot-on.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 20 May 2005 18:05:11 +0000

There were multiple dissents. He just didn't comment on hers.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 20 May 2005 18:00:11 +0000

Looked at Owen's op, and the Monitor is quite right. Her dissent sticks to arguing that the court was applying the wrong standard of review.

Which, again, makes it very, very odd that AG didn't just say that. Did he or his flunkies simply not read the opinions? Just the kind of due diligence we'd expect from AG, given his sub-1L performance in briefing Bush on clemency petitions.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 20 May 2005 17:20:10 +0000

What's amazing here is that Gonzales didn't see fit to clarify his remarks in this manner. Rather, he embraced "judicial relativism," to coin a phrase, saying that while it would've been activist for him to argue as the dissenters did, it wasn't activist for them, because they sincerely construed things differently. It really is that bad; see the none-too-liberal Howard Bashman's post, with links. I wouldn't hire AG to represent me if he were the last lawyer on earth. That said, while AG's concurrence lumps the dissenters together, the CS Monitor's point is interesting, & I'll have to go back to Owens's op now & see what's up.