Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roe v. Wade Overturned? - MUST READ - ACTION ALERT
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/ ^ | 17 January 2004 | http://www.reclaimamerica.org/

Posted on 01/17/2005 12:53:02 PM PST by davidosborne

C E N T E R F O R R E C L A I M I N G A M E R I C A From the Desk of Dr. Gary Cass, Executive Director + + PRO-LIFE ALERT,

1/17/2005 Supreme Court receives case to overturn Roe v. Wade (Forward to your pro-life friends)

On January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin a process that could overturn Roe v. Wade! Because you have stood with the Center for Reclaiming America on pro-life issues, I wanted to alert you to this news. On January 18, Norma McCorvey (the original "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade) will file a legal appeal with the Supreme Court to have Roe v. Wade reversed. I will be in Washington, D.C., on that day to stand with our friends at The Justice Foundation in support of this case. The Justice Foundation has invested thousands upon thousands of hours in this case. They have gathered an enormous body of evidence to support Norma's case. Chris, this is a powerful opportunity to refute Roe v. Wade! Here is how you can help. First, notify your friends. Forward this message to everyone you know. We simply must get the word out. Second, please pray for Norma and the team at The Justice Foundation. Set aside time on January 18, specifically, to pray. Third, find out more about this case and how you can impact The Justice Foundation’s efforts here: http://www.operationoutcry.org Thank you! Dr. Gary Cass Executive Director Center for Reclaiming America + + For CENTER coverage of this issue: http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/operation/operationout.asp + + The Center for Reclaiming America, established by Dr. D. James Kennedy, is an outreach of Coral Ridge Ministries to inform the American public and motivate Christians to defend and implement the biblical principles on which our country was founded. The Center, led by Executive Director Dr. Gary Cass, provides non-partisan, non-denominational information, training, and support to all those interested in impacting the culture and renewing the vision set forth by our Founding Fathers. Questions? cfra@coralridge.org


TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: 18january2005; abortion; carnie; janurary182005; overturnroevwade; prolife; roevwade; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-211 next last
To: Poohbah
Ms. McCorvey was under an obligation to (a) not perjure herself and (b) request reopening the case in a timely manner...neither of which she did.

You assume perjury and you assume untimeliness -neither apply. New evidence has no such limits New evidence entails scientific and technological evidence not available at the time -among other things....

141 posted on 01/17/2005 9:23:04 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
The "newly discovered evidence" reason in subparagraph (2) is out by definition, given the 1 year limitation expressly delineated in 60(b).

New evidence has no such limits .

142 posted on 01/17/2005 9:36:48 PM PST by Ready4Freddy (Veni Vidi Velcro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
I respectfully disagree.. the question is RELEVENT.. and given the 32 years of history the COURT has an obligation to decided if the issue was as an original matter WRONGLY decided 32yrs of evidence to prove that it WAS wrongly decided 32yrs ago period

Regardless, the court has to follow its own rules. It can't simply decide to accept this appeal if the rules don't allow for it. Remember, the last thing we want is judicial activism.

I don't see how the court can rule that she has grounds to bring anything related to this case before them, the case is 32 years old and she is no longer impacted by the previous ruling so she has no basis to bring anything before the court.

143 posted on 01/17/2005 9:45:50 PM PST by 1LongTimeLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Raquel
Well said.

The ruling is supposedly for ever thus no statute of limitations. This is the Supreme Court. They can and have heard other cases long after the original rulings.

Waiting may depend. If there is a bad ruling then there will be even more pressure on the DemocRATS to allow conservative judges on the bench and thus less of a problem if the "nuclear option" is necessary. Especially if they rule against God again.
144 posted on 01/17/2005 10:03:14 PM PST by ImphClinton (Four More Years Go Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Raquel
Well said.

The ruling is supposedly for ever thus no statute of limitations. This is the Supreme Court. They can and have heard other cases long after the original rulings.

Waiting may depend. If there is a bad ruling then there will be even more pressure on the DemocRATS to allow conservative judges on the bench and thus less of a problem if the "nuclear option" is necessary. Especially if they rule against God again.
145 posted on 01/17/2005 10:03:20 PM PST by ImphClinton (Four More Years Go Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: E.G.C.

Let's PRAY that this decision is overturned! What an incredible victory for the innocent babies!!!!!


146 posted on 01/17/2005 10:40:23 PM PST by Cheetah1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Spanaway Lori
I gave birth to a full term, healthy baby boy. I chose life, and adoption, not abortion.

Praise the Lord for your tender heart!

(goldfinch, adoptive mom of an internationally adopted child)

147 posted on 01/17/2005 11:10:29 PM PST by Tuscaloosa Goldfinch (THANK YOU LORD -- John Kerry is still just a senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Ping


148 posted on 01/18/2005 12:06:51 AM PST by AnimalLover ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"The court has ZERO obligation to do anything."

True. This will be bantied about like the 16th Amendment was. Supremos will say it's a political question after all this time and will refuse to get involved for the same reason they didn't want to get involved with shutting down the unconstitutional 16th. Right or wrong, the feds have been in possession of it so long it will be 'grandfathered' in, in a manner of speaking, IMO.

149 posted on 01/18/2005 12:16:11 AM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
The proper course of action seems obvious to me:

1. The unborn person IS a person
2. The 5th Ammendment protects all persons
3. Abortion denies the unborn person's right to life
4. No Other Constitutional Ammendment is necessary

150 posted on 01/18/2005 2:44:15 AM PST by 1_Of_We
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
I admire your enthusiasm and effort. I would prefer showing them who's boss. Please have "Impeach Baby-Killing Judges" signs, although on the court grounds, that would be illegal. Where to hold those signs, I have no idea. If your signs are not respectful on court grounds, they will lock you up for whatever length of time they desire. You must grovel before them when on their turf. They do not deserve grovelling. It would disgust me to see it.

I will pray that you succeed. Unfortunately, activists aren't very persuasive to judges. You could throw an unborn corpse at their feet, and half of them would step past it, focusing on the educations their leftist professors indoctrinated them with. Most of them do not take their oath regarding our nation's posterety seriously.

If this fails, please consider the impeachment of these judges. That is the only recourse. Their education is lacking. It will take removals from the bench to get their attention.

Waiting for new appointments is not enough, IMHO. Our professors are in some fantasy world, a leftist ivory tower, and that translates into more leftist judges. Even if Bush does everything he can to size a judge up, many will hide their true thoughts for the 'greater good' their professors have taught them.

FReegards....

151 posted on 01/18/2005 3:05:11 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (The Four Law Breakers: Senators Rockefeller, Durbin, Carl Levin, Ron Wyden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

BTTT!!!!


152 posted on 01/18/2005 3:05:58 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: johnb838

"We have to get used to the idear of "just saying NO" to the courts if we ever want to get out of the mess we're in."

Or we demand impeachment hearings of judges.


153 posted on 01/18/2005 3:07:15 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (The Four Law Breakers: Senators Rockefeller, Durbin, Carl Levin, Ron Wyden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

Yes, a nice witch hunt would be great. I mean it. Track down the judges who have issued nonsensical, anti-american, leftist rulings, and impeach them one by one. What has to happen to impeach a judge? Who tries the case? Who decides?


154 posted on 01/18/2005 3:53:24 AM PST by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of AMERICAN anger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
You assume perjury and you assume untimeliness -neither apply.

McCorvey said she was raped. Now she says she lied about being raped.

That's known as "perjury."

Second: 32 years is untimely. That's more than a lifetime for many.

New evidence has no such limits

In a civil case, it does.

New evidence entails scientific and technological evidence not available at the time -among other things....

And it's still irrelevant to Roe v.Wade which closed over three decades ago. It's done with. The court could not reopen Plessy v. Ferguson in the 1950s; they needed a new cause of action, which is why Brown v. Board of Education happened.

Consider this: if Roe v. Wade can be reopened now, what would stop a more abortion-friendly court later on from reopening it a third time, to reaffirm the original ruling?

155 posted on 01/18/2005 4:19:21 AM PST by Poohbah (God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: wouldntbprudent
No, you don't get every other case re-opened just because one is. It's very difficult to re-open cases. If the appropriate legal standards are met, then maybe the justices will do it. But that doesn't open the floodgates you seem to fear so much.

And 32 years later fails a basic test of timeliness, especially when it's by the winning party.

Bottom line: if it may be reopened today on this weak a justification, it may be reopened by a pro-abort court tomorrow.

There's a reason that the landmark case in desegregation is known as Brown v. Board of Education and not Plessy v. Ferguson Mulligan.

156 posted on 01/18/2005 4:22:26 AM PST by Poohbah (God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

I am sorry for the abuse you will take over your post, which is dead on.

Whoever considers this action as potentially fruitful is fooling themselves. It will be rejected or worse, reconsidered and abortion found to be an even MORE fundamental right, with partial-birth a-okay!

This court is simply not one that will reverse Roe. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world. Ms. McCorvey is simply making herself a martyr for the right as she did for the left. She will now likely be a target for prosecution by the left, who know (as you and I do) that perjury has no statute of limitations.


157 posted on 01/18/2005 4:24:03 AM PST by LibertarianInExile (NO BLOOD FOR CHOCOLATE! Get the UN-ignoring, unilateralist Frogs out of Ivory Coast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Raquel
I'm not sure if this will be a problem because part of the Appeal includes studies and research that show the long term effects of abortion. They have reasonably concluded that abortion is not just harmful to women but harmful to society.

Her cause of action is tied to a statement that she perjured herself.

The other information in the appeal is essentially window dressing--the cause of action is what's critical, and this pleading is going to bomb, badly. The Court will most likely decline to hear the case without further comment.

The real problem is who is on the Supreme Court. I would have preferred to wait until atleast one more conservative Justice was appointed before filing the Appeal (if that is possible because of time limitations on the Appeal).

The time limitations on appeals--particularly by the winning party--is extremely limited. It's well under 32 years.

158 posted on 01/18/2005 4:25:46 AM PST by Poohbah (God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The problem here is that she is filing 32 years after the case closed.

There is no statute of limitations for murder.

159 posted on 01/18/2005 4:27:38 AM PST by Go Gordon (If at first you don't succeed...skydiving is not for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shhrubbery!

Dream on. Neither of those justices is doing crap.

The only chances this will change are replacements for O'Connor and other libs and/or constitutional amendment. The latter won't happen. The former might, given the age of liberal justices.


160 posted on 01/18/2005 4:27:53 AM PST by LibertarianInExile (NO BLOOD FOR CHOCOLATE! Get the UN-ignoring, unilateralist Frogs out of Ivory Coast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-211 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson