Posted on 01/17/2005 12:53:02 PM PST by davidosborne
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....
New evidence has no such limits .
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.
Let's PRAY that this decision is overturned! What an incredible victory for the innocent babies!!!!!
Praise the Lord for your tender heart!
(goldfinch, adoptive mom of an internationally adopted child)
Ping
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.
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
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....
BTTT!!!!
"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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
There is no statute of limitations for murder.
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.
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.