Posted on 01/17/2005 12:53:02 PM PST by davidosborne
Thank you for posting that....
Are you speaking for God here? Are you saying this with Godly authority? Or just being negative and pessimistic? There's power in united prayer, no matter what say the naysayers. I believe the stronghold of Roe vs. Wade will definitely be broken, without a doubt. :o)
Glory Hallelujah, Jesus Christ is Lord
Amen
I agree, and the sooner the STATES get busy on deciding this issue, the better off Our Nation will be.
It seems to me that RvW can be assailed on grounds that it is an unconstitutional usurpation of power on the part of the Judiciary at the cost of the federal and state Legislatures.
In effect, the USSC declared that an entire class of homicide is licit. Almost as a side note, it established that an entire class of human beings are not legally "people" and are without the rights described in the constitution - most particularly the 14th Amendment.
Doing this is not among the enumerated powers of the Judiciary.
There is ample established precedent indicating that only the legislatures are empowered to define homicide classes as licit or murder. There is also ample precedent indicating that only the legislatures are empowered to define limitations on rights (eg: age restrictions, imprisonment, etc...).
I don't think RvW could endure a well-prepared challenge on these grounds.
my $.02
The rule also imposes a 1-year time limit.
Fine. They're wrong. It's a civil case, and is being treated as such.
Yeah, unless I'm mistaken she doesn't even have legal standing to bring a challenge (I imagine she'll try to show that she's suffering some sort of continuing harm...a non-starter).
This will not happen. We do not have the right (judges on the court) to overturn it. At best they might consider sending this to Congress for action on a law allowing or disallowing abortion. If that were to happen, I for one would feel better about the chances for ending the slaughter of the unborn.
Work Hell! I'm retired.
MOOT!
Roe v. Wade MIGHT be revisited one day, but it won't be the original case that makes that happen, for reasons a number of posters have already posted. There is NO reason why a court (and it doesn't have to be the USSC) can't revisit the case if it finds reason to do so; a Constitutional Amendment is not required. But I do have to say I have mixed feelings about this---it's very poor case law and always was, but at the same time, there are now huge bodies of federal and state law, statutory and case, based on Roe. The resultant chaos of overturning Roe...hard to imagine. And hard to consider such an overturning at this point responsible jurisprudence.
"the problem is that she is filing 32 years after the case was closed . "
Compare this with the case of "Plessy vs. ferguson "
In that case, the Court stated that Segregation is O.K.
Then, in "Brown vs. the Board of Education " , the court reversed itself . what kind of "Stare Decisis" is that ?
Besides, over the years, since 1972, sonograms, etc. have been developed to show that Life does begin lots earlier than the warren Court thought .
I think the case should be considered .
And, supposing you get your way...
Fifteen years from now, the libs have a 5-4 majority on the court and want to reopen the case AGAIN.
What's your argument against doing so?
No, it's not. Her request rests on federal rules that allow an original party to request a ruling be vacated when factual and legal changes make the decision no longer just. Both the legal and scientific environment have changed. Under Rule 60, that entitles her to revisit the question.
Here are some of the changes:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42422
She cites the sworn testimony of more than 1,000 women who say they were hurt by abortion.
McCorvey's lead attorney, Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation, believes a significant change in most state laws has solved the issue of women being burdened with the unwanted responsibility of raising a child. The new laws allow a woman to take her newborn to a "safe haven" anonymously, providing a safer alternative to abortion.
McCorvey said each aborted child represents another tragedy, the harm to the mother.
Among McCorvey's 5,437 pages of evidence are affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/17/221851.shtml
Norma McCorvvey, known as Jane Roe in court filings, told the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" on Monday, "We're going to be fling a Motion 60 brief tomorrow with the Supreme Court and ask and plead and beg them to please overturn Roe vs. Wade."
her decision to actively challenge the landmark ruling was spurred, she explained, by new technology that dramatically increased chances for viability for the unborn. She also cited the increase in post-abortion depression among women.
McCorvey's lawyer, Allan Parker, explained the legal process, telling "Hannity & Colmes": "Under Rule 60, Norma, as a party [to the original case], can ask the court to vacate her judgment - set it aside as if it never was - on the grounds that it's no longer just."
Given the current makeup of the court, I agree. It will all be set aside by a pro-life court someday soon I hope.
"Yes, a nice witch hunt would be great."
It's more like hunting down cannibals with a trail of 40 million corpses behind them.
"I mean it. Track down the judges who have issued nonsensical, anti-american, leftist rulings, and impeach them one by one."
It takes a very high standard to get a 2/3rds vote in the senate. We don't have enough senate seats yet, but we are getting close.
"What has to happen to impeach a judge? Who tries the case? Who decides?"
It has to be a judge who even ticks off the most left wing of the 2/3rds majority in the senate [or 2/3ds that has the most ticked off constituency.]
The senate votes for removal. First, a hearing is held. Starting a hearing would be the easy part if the majority leader has any guts. Fox News, talk radio, and the internet would most likely display a lot of interest if a Federal judge went through such a process. That could shape the next election cycle. If we pick a mainstream judge, it would go bad for us. If we pick a real leftwing nut, it would go well for us.
Rats would have to fall on their swords like crazy if we pick someone way out there to impeach.
What a big shame. The court won't touch this and their denying the petition will only add fuel to the fire of the other side. I can see the headline "Court Rebuffs Anti-Abortion Activists". Stupid Stupid Stupid.
You are perhaps my favorite poster on this site. You always cut through the BS and get to the facts.
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.