Posted on 08/28/2015 10:42:13 AM PDT by fungoking
Donald Trump told Mark Halperin yesterday that his sister, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. He also said that “we will have to rule that out now, at least.” If he ever becomes president, let’s hope he rules it out permanently.
Maryanne Trump Barry came up in my book The Party of Death for writing one of those heated judicial decisions in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion. She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”
So: The right of abortionists to make a child “expire” by partially extracting her from the womb, sticking scissors in the back of her head, vacuuming out her brain, and crushing her skull to complete her extraction, is right there in the Constitution. But let’s please not have any “semantic machinations.”
Laws against partial-birth abortion had strong bipartisan support. They were attempts to mark an outer limit to the abortion right of Roe. If unborn children could not be protected within the womb, could they at least be protected when partway out? That would be illogical, said Judge Barry. But if the location of fetal death does not matter, then it could hardly matter if the child was all the way outside the womb. Laws against infanticide, too, must be dismissed as irrational line-drawing. The intellectual architect of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Hadley Arkes, mentions Judge Barry’s decision in his book on the origin of that law, explaining that it was in part designed to head off the dangerous implications of such rulings.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that partial-birth abortion could be outlawed—but it did so by a margin of one. It’s understandable that Trump would praise his sister. But when candidates praise relatives who have served in public office—whether they’re members of the Bush, Paul, Clinton, or Trump families—voters are entitled to keep those relatives’ records in mind.
The Trump haters grasp onto everything.
“Most people hate their sister. This is an important strike against Trump.’
That is funny.
No read it last week google should pull it up. The article I read was written shortly after the decision. Barry is very close to Sam Alito. She spoke at his confirmation hearing which you may also want to read
She is older than Donald and retired. Not much chance she will do anything but advice and be there for her little brother (who she knew at a young age not to challenge or become competitive) Trump says she’s very reserved and sometimes wonders if they had the same parents
False. I don't know what ruling you looked at but the one in this case from the Third Circuit is absolutely on the merits.
What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you not understand? That qua the lower court ruling which was upheld by the Court of Appeals
I seem to remember a bunch of people on this forum questioning Cruz's conservative bona fides simply due to the job his wife held. Considering Trump's recent personal views on abortion, his opinion of PP as providing good services, etc., it does not seem unreasonable to consider whether his statement about his sister as a good candidate for SCOTUS should give us concern over the types of judges he would appoint.
In general, I would not hold the actions or political positions of a family member against a candidate. But when the candidate endorses those positions by suggesting that family member would be a good candidate for an office that would allow them to IMPLEMENT those positions, that is a problem for the candidate.
I understand a trial court in New Jersey struck down New Jersey's law on partial-birth abortion and a panel of the Third Circuit, including Trump's sister, affirmed that ruling. In an opinion written by Trump's sister. On the merits, not any technicalities.
That qua the lower court ruling which was upheld by the Court of Appeals
Please rewrite in English.
What I fear of a President Trump is that he is a VERY recent convert to the Republican party (let's be honest, there should be an “R” after his name but a “T”). He's a lifelong liberal dim who is soft on social issues. He's more liberal than Bush 41, and if 41 gave us Souter what would Trump give us.
With Roberts deciding that the SC is an equal legislative branch it makes the next SC nominee even more critical.
These folks were happy at NR with that great conservative justice Roberts who gave us Obamacare and Kennedy appointed by Ronald Reagan who ruled in favor of the gay marriage tyranny.
The time for political whining about judges to promote the next election cycle for the Republican Party is over and the time to disobey them with spiritual passion is upon us.
This is political spin and smear that doesn’t count in my estimation of Trump. I don’t support him but I won’t participate in his destruction by the GOPe and their media organs.
Dear Jeb. I don’t care. I will never vote for another Bush. After W left office, Laura “came out” as pro abortion and pro gay marriage. You just can’t trust any Bush.
Trump the buffoon and the truth, my goodness
Alrighty, then let’s talk about Cruz’ wife and Jeb’s wife.
From what I read last week she has a n excellent reputation for consistency and following the letter of the law
ThAnks for your research
All this was made possible by the duplicity and cowardice of GOPE.
AGREED!
Vagueness is always an issue brought up in these cases. So is overbreadth. Those are merit-based arguments, not based on technicalities. Technicalities have more to do with, say, whether someone has standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
In the latter situations, courts must then decide whether someone does, in fact, have standing before they move on to the merits of the case (if the person does not have standing they almost always then jettison the case without deciding on the merits).
Alito, who concurred with the ruling, did so not because of the vagueness stated by Barry, but because he felt that the SCOTUS had already set precedent in striking down Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban. To him, it was the job of the court to follow SCOTUS precedent.
That's essentially correct.
Now SCOTUS struck down Nebraska, from what I gather here, due to lack of "life of the mother" exceptions and for entirely banning methods that could be used in non-partial birth abortion situations.
It should be noted, after the Nebraska case, SCOTUS accepted a partial-birth case from a different state & basically overturned its previous ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.