ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Neil Lewis has a piece in the New York Times today, especially focusing on the alleged comment by Alberto Gonzales that Priscilla Owen was engaged in an "unconscionable act of judicial activism." I previously discussed that episode here at confirmthem, and explained that Gonzales was actually not accusing Owen of anything. The thing I don't understand about today's article by Neil Lewis is this: Gonzales stated during the same episode that "I cannot rewrite the statute," so why isn't Lewis being consistent and also interpreting that statement as an accusation against Owen?

Obviously, Gonzales didn't intend either statement to be an accusation, though Lewis would like everyone to believe otherwise. The piece by Lewis is presented as a news article, but it's really an opinion piece. Had Lewis been interested in objective facts, he could have mentioned that --- in the very same case --- Gonzales said that Owen "agrees that the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the legislature."

For an excellent opinion piece that's labelled as such, see "Liberals once Sang Different Tune on Filibusters" by Robert Novak.

UPDATE: Power Line takes a detailed look at the case in which Gonzales did NOT accuse Owen of anything.

UPDATE #2: The pro-filibuster campaign of Neil Lewis continues, with another article in the New York Times, again distorting the record in this case. Lewis writes:

Alberto R. Gonzales, the attorney general, who was a member of the court at the time, said the views of the dissenters were far beyond what the Legislature had enacted and amounted to "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

Perhaps sometime Mr. Lewis might quote the entire sentence written by then-Justice Gonzales:

Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism. (emphasis added).

At least, the New York Times should be able to spare enough ink to print all of the material after the last comma, including the word "would." If Gonzales was trying to say that the dissenters' views did amount to activism, then he would not have used the word would. And, Gonzales would not have acknowledged that each of the dissenters "agrees that the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the legislature." Lewis mentions in his most recent bit of propaganda that, "A review of the court opinions shows that other judges also asserted that Justice Owen and her fellow dissenters were putting their own views ahead of the law." Yet he cites no such assertion referring to either Justice Owen in particular or to the dissenters as a group, and I have found none in the case. The New York Times was once a great newspaper.