Posted on 01/17/2005 12:53:02 PM PST by davidosborne
Statute of limitations is long expired. On top of that, if she was coerved to commit perjury, it would be a major mitigating factor, especially since she came forward.
That's one option I support. Another option would be to get pro-life laws passed in one or more states and let the Court revisit the issue in a new case.
Roe v. Wade closed 32 years ago. Legally speaking, it's about as dead as disco.
Correct me if I am wrong..
You are suggesting that there is no way to ask the court to revisit the originally question, and that you think we should correct this matter by Constitutional Ammendment?
Which makes the claim of having committed perjury moot.
If you can't get racked up for perjury because of the statute of limitations, odds are that the case is not open for review due to the passage of time.
They will probably send her to prison for perjury. </sarcasm>
Not possible becuase of the "CATCH-22" any "new law" will be deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on Roe v. Wade.. Correct Roe v. Wade, and new law is not needed
What we NEED is a constitutional crisis in which the Executive Branch issues a ban on abortions and orders the enforcement mechanisms to ignore the court and enforce it. 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. And don't talk to me about lawlessness, we're more lawless than ever and that's with the lawyers in charge.
I'm all for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, but this is the wrong case at the wrong time.
No, I did not say that. You asked the same question earlier, and I answered it in Post #42. Bottom line: Roe v. Wade is, legally speaking, as dead as disco is. The option for judicial review is to get a new law restricting abortion enacted in one or more states, and then litigate the issue in a new case.
this court needs and enima........removing the likes of Ginsberg and Breyer....till then we can kiss cases like this goodbye.
....we need a bench full of Scalia's
Agree completely.
Bad analogy. Disco dancing, i.e. the hustle, is currently making a comeback.
see post 47
OK.
As dead as the leisure suit?
Bad analogy. Disco dancing, i.e. the hustle, is currently making a comeback.
About the best Ms. McCorvey can hope for is that she doesn't get racked up for perjury.
32 years...what is the statute of limitations on perjury?
Ever hear of two cases, Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education?
The Court did a 180-degree turn on the controversy at the center of those two cases.
It can happen again.
Roe v. Wade is not going to be "corrected" 32 years after it closes, based solely on a Rule 60(b) filing by the plaintiff (who did, after all, get what she asked for at the time). Period. That's not how the legal system actually works.
Poohbah is correct. The Court doesn't give advisory opinions or answer political questions. They don't overturn decisions based on their whims, no matter how logical it may seem.
They had to wait years for a case like Brown v. Board of Ed so they could overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. They couldn't just overturn it, it doesn't work that way.
About what it is for post-closure review of civil litigation.
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.