Posted on 09/17/2004 7:17:35 PM PDT by wagglebee
Concurring opinion labels decision as “exercise of raw judicial power” despite dismissal of appeal by “Roe” to reverse the ruling
NEW ORLEANS—Although a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday dismissed a case designed to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, Judge Edith Jones issued a concurring opinion that excoriated the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, calling it an “exercise of raw judicial power.”
“The judge’s comments are on the mark,” said Alliance Defense Fund Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull. “Roe v. Wade is the perfect example of what can result from judicial activism—in this case, the deaths of millions of Americans.”
In her concurring opinion, Jones wrote, “The perverse result of the Court’s having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter. This is a peculiar outcome for a Court so committed to ‘life’ that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year.”
Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” from the Roe v. Wade decision who is now pro-life, filed the suit that was dismissed yesterday out of her belief that Roe was built upon false assumptions and both disregard and ignorance of crucial facts. Her attorneys say they will likely appeal the case, Norma McCorvey v. Bill Hill, to the Supreme Court. The 5th Circuit dismissed the case as moot, reasoning that her motion did not present a “live case or controversy” because Texas laws criminalizing abortion have been “repealed by implication.”
Jones wrote in her concurring remarks that she lamented that mootness prevented McCorvey’s evidence in the case from being heard: “In sum, if courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe’s balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman’s ‘choice’ is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child’s sentience far more advanced, than the Roe Court knew.”
Jones concluded, “That the Court’s constitutional decisionmaking leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the Court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication.”
ADF is America’s largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
Wow, where's this person been all my life?
Justice Jones is right. Abortion is not in the Constitution. Only liberals can find a constitutional right to abortion in the constitution but somehow miss the right to bear arms in the second amendment.
Heck, we knew that. Same with the present court. You have people on there like Souder, to whom women are just "fish", or, as with Ginzburg, not really civilized (like she believes her friends on the European courts are).
She sounds like an excellent person to nominate for a seat on the Supreme Court.
Put her on the short list for the Supreme Court
It goes way beyond just that. There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for the judicial branch to enact laws. Moreover, there is not even a provision for the courts to "interpret" the Constitution, this was a power grab by John Marshall 200 years ago in Marbury vs. Madison. Logic and a thorough reading of the Constitution would dictate that the executive branch would determine what is lawful and prosecute accordingly.
Well it's going to be harder to elevate her to the Supreme Court now.
But, But, But, the Constitution is a living breathing document............(sarcasm off)
I agree, I wish pro-life judges would keep these views to themselves until after they are elevated to the SCOTUS.
She is one of the most brilliant conservative judges in the country. Appointed by President Reagan in the early 1980s.
bump for weekend issue
We [Federalist Society] just brought Justice Jones to speak at our law school. She's brilliant.
Haven't read it yet, but ping for later.
You've hit the nail on the head. WE are supposed to have three balanced branches of government, however Marbury vs. Madison sought to bring an imbalance by giving the Judicial branch "Constitution Interpretation" power that was never meant to be theirs alone.
2. The Executive should refuse to honor any 'decisions' handed down by the Judiciary which are at odds with existing legislated law.
That's 'ambiguity', of course.
Right on Justice Jones.
Right you are. She just failed the litmus test. Which is *EXACTLY* why we have to repeal the litmus test and pickup 60 or 61 in the senate. Then watch the real work begin.
Viva Cristo Rey!
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.