Unborn Babies vs. The Rule of Law

The American Life League has issued a statement in opposition to the potential nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court.  Here is an excerpt:

When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his "own personal feelings about abortion don't matter… The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job." Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.

(HT: CT) 

I'm fairly confident that Gonzales was not speaking of mere "technical points of law" (whatever those are), but of a judge's responsibility to uphold settled legal principles, regardless of how distasteful he finds them.  The American Life League apparently would like judges to further the interests of the unborn regardless of legal constraints.

Do any co-bloggers or readers agree with the American Life League?  Does Catholic legal theory contemplate that a judge subvert the rule of law in order to protect the unborn?  Once a judge reasonably finds a law to be indeterminate, does that create space for the insertion of his own beliefs?  In the case of abortion, is a judge morally obligated to stretch to find indeterminacy?  Or should a judge advance the cause of the unborn whenever the opportunity presents itself, even when the constitutional and interpretive issues resist such advancement under any reasonable legal analysis?

Rob