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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-211 next last
To: Hildy

Sean Hannity announced on his show today that she will be appearing on his show tonight. Could be this announcement.


21 posted on 01/17/2005 1:23:48 PM PST by jslade (People who are easily offended......OFFEND ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Norma McCorvey is going to be on Hannity and Colmes tonight. Sean mentioned that she will have breaking news.


22 posted on 01/17/2005 1:23:51 PM PST by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; davidosborne
The appeal is based on a Rule 60(b) motion, and was DISMISSED in District Court, then DISMISSED in the 5th Circuit.

Appeal to SCOTUS is the last kiss o' the pig, and not likely to be heard by the Court.

In the words of the 5th Circuit:

The mootness doctrine “ensures that the litigant’s interest in the outcome continues to exist throughout the life of the lawsuit . . . including the pendency of the appeal.” Cook v. Colgate, 992 F.2d 17, 19 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395, 100 S. Ct. 1202, 1209 (1980)) (other citations omitted); see also Rocky v. King, 900 F.2d 864, 866 (5th Cir. 1990) (controversy must remain “live” throughout the litigation process). Mootness is the fatal issue for McCorvey.

IOW, don't get your hopes up.

23 posted on 01/17/2005 1:25:07 PM PST by Ready4Freddy (Veni Vidi Velcro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: shhrubbery!

The point of this whole matter is to BRING the matter before the court, and have the CURRENT court decide if the matter was correctly or INcorrectly decided originally....


24 posted on 01/17/2005 1:25:53 PM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Pro-Life bump!


25 posted on 01/17/2005 1:28:36 PM PST by Taxman (So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader
So it's better to stick with judicial activism once it's a long-standing precedent than to overturn it?

You overturn judicial activism by overturning bad rulings using sound rulings that do not step into new areas of judicial activism.

You don't overturn judicial activism by inventing more judicial activism.

The latter is like "fighting for peace" or "fornicating for chastity."

26 posted on 01/17/2005 1:28:36 PM PST by Poohbah (God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Are you suggesting that when a matter of this nature is reconsidered in light of 32 years of history, and it is determined that the matter was originally WRONGLY decided, that we should not make the correction because we don't want to upset a "long-standing precedence"?

You want every 30+-year-old case that didn't go someone's way reopened? That's what you'd get.

The entire basis of action is McCorvey's admission that she perjured herself. The proper time for her to have admitted this was in 1973. She didn't do it then, or within a reasonable time thereafter.

27 posted on 01/17/2005 1:30:17 PM PST by Poohbah (God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ready4Freddy

The issue of ABORTION is not MOOT ... it was controversial then, and it is controversial now, maybe even MORE SO, over the years, and thus should be revisited, and either UPHELD, or OVERTURNED. IMHO the argument of "precedence" is ONLY relevent to the LOWER courts. Lower courts can argue that although they disagree with the precedence they are BOUND by it... not so in the USSC


28 posted on 01/17/2005 1:30:52 PM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

The Court won't hear this case. Norma McCorvey's stake in this case is moot as far as the court is concerned. Based on what I've read, I'd say that there is 0% chance of this Court, or any US Supreme Court, hearing the case. McCorvey has no personal stake in the outcome,no damages to recover, and there are no adverse parties. She's simply trying to overturn the decision that was in her favor. It doesn't work like that; she has no standing IMO.


29 posted on 01/17/2005 1:31:31 PM PST by SAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

I have a better chance of winning the lottery!


30 posted on 01/17/2005 1:34:03 PM PST by verity (The Liberal Media is America's Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
The issue of ABORTION is not MOOT ... it was controversial then, and it is controversial now, maybe even MORE SO, over the years, and thus should be revisited, and either UPHELD, or OVERTURNED.

The cause of action for Ms. McCorvey in this specific filing (i.e., her statement that she lied when she claimed that she was raped) is moot.

31 posted on 01/17/2005 1:34:34 PM PST by Poohbah (God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

"So, conservative judicial activism that overturns long-standing precedence on closing cases in a timely manner is a good thing?

Hoo boy. Better get ready for a BUNCH of lawyers to shout "MULLIGAN!" and re-litigate a bunch of moldy cases."

I guess you think Dredd Scott should not have been revisited.


32 posted on 01/17/2005 1:34:49 PM PST by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
I believe this has two chances of happening

1. Slim
2. None

33 posted on 01/17/2005 1:36:51 PM PST by clamper1797 (VA-93 --- CVA-41 Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club 72-73)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
If the court decides that matter was originally WRONGLY decided, then YES it should be reopened and the issue CORRECTED.. its a matter of correcting a wrong act, and moving on.. we have suffered long enough under that poor decision its time to overturn it and ask God's forgiveness.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

34 posted on 01/17/2005 1:36:54 PM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Perhaps not, but the Texas laws that the appeal seeks to revisit are no longer applicable, thus the appeal is moot.

Bad lawyering by the CFRA.

The issue of ABORTION is not MOOT...

35 posted on 01/17/2005 1:37:02 PM PST by Ready4Freddy (Veni Vidi Velcro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

Dred Scott.


36 posted on 01/17/2005 1:37:11 PM PST by EternalVigilance ("Visualize Whirled Peas" - CHIEF Negotiator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl
I guess you think Dredd Scott should not have been revisited.

It never was; it was overturned by the 13th Amendment.

37 posted on 01/17/2005 1:37:27 PM PST by Poohbah (God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

Good point


38 posted on 01/17/2005 1:38:02 PM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

So you SUPPORT the process of Ammending the Constitution to Correct this Judicial Error, rather than have the court revisit the issue?


39 posted on 01/17/2005 1:39:48 PM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
If the court decides that matter was originally WRONGLY decided, then YES it should be reopened and the issue CORRECTED.. its a matter of correcting a wrong act, and moving on.. we have suffered long enough under that poor decision its time to overturn it and ask God's forgiveness

You are (deliberately?) conflating two different causes of action here, no matter how many times you are corrected.

The court will not consider this motion, because the case closed 32 years ago. The motion to reconsider under Rule 60(b) cannot meet any reasonable definition of timely review and reconsideration of the case.

The court will NOT discuss whether the matter was wrongly decided, because Ms. McCorvey's filing doesn't address that issue at all.

40 posted on 01/17/2005 1:41:53 PM PST by Poohbah (God must love fools. He makes so many of them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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