Posted on 10/31/2005 7:58:05 PM PST by Coleus
I do assume you mean that sarcastically. As least I hope so. Around here these days, one cannot take such things for granted without checking.
"Our responsibility as a lower court is to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent..."
You're wrong here.
Is G_d Pro Abortion?
If we go to the bible, we will find that the penalty for killing a woman is death. The penalty for killing the mother of an unborn child is death. But the penalty for harming a mother so that her unborn child dies but she survives is not death. How can we accept such unmistakable devaluation and cheapening of the life of the unborn? Clearly this is unacceptable, and something must be done. Don thee once again the mantle of woe and victimhood, because we cannot be the self-annointed leaders of the pro-life movement and not be perpetually disappointed and castigating.
>>>>If we listen to folks like you, pretty soon NO ONE will be qualified for the SCOTUS. Sheesh! Get a grip
We shouldn't be looking at prior rulings? That is what everyone wanted to see that Miers didn't have.
So, we should have no discussion? Not post records and ask no questions?
sigh.
Did you even read the articles about this?
" First, in Part II-A of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother."
It's not just roe, that's one of the biggies. But there are other decided cases out there that act as precedent. Not having the supreme court agreed upon "health of the mother" clause goes against the precedent, so they had to strike it down.
Did you do ANY research at all into this before you decided to post? It's been discussed here already today.
I don't want an "activist" judge -- we are already suffering from the decisions of the activists on the court now!
Whatever happened to common sense and decency?
I want a judge that knows from the get go that killing children is no one's right.
"A nation that kills its children is a nation without hope." Pope John Paul II
the one with the clue.
Very well stated -- you have done a terrific job of explaining this and about 95% of Freepers will understand. The others are almost not worth the trouble except for those that read these threads and might get the wrong impression if people like you didn't set the record straight! :)
No, he did not.
I agree - but I think Alito is on our side. The Carhart decision, wrongheaded as it was , is the law and he could not ignore it as a Court of Appeals judge. As a Supreme Court justice he can and will, IMHO, not ignore it but demonstrate the basic illogic of it as he helps to overrule Roe v. Wade.
Where is it written that conservatives have to be raving, activist pro-lifers?
Well, not exactly, there is the small matter of judicial activism in Barnhart v Thomas.
Nobody is perfect, Alito included.
they can have discussions on prior rulings - in fact this ruling has already been discussed today.
But it's hard to have a discussion when the person who started the thread and thinks there's some kind of scandal doesn't even know the role and the rules of circuit court judges.
The reaction coming about here from asking questions about Alito's record is scary too. They are coming from a lot of the same Nics that opposed Miers.
LOL
Well done.
They do, but since Alito followed the law as determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the only court that can overturn itself. If the Supreme Court says 2 + 2 = 5, the circuit courts have no choice by to say 2 + 2 = 5 if that question comes before the court. It is the correct ruling eventhough they know it is wrong. >>>>
Then why do many states HAVE bans on PBA?????????
so alito and trump are right and all these states are wrong??
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_BPBA.pdf
HIGHLIGHTS:
26 states have bans on “partial-birth” abortions that apply throughout pregnancy.
18 bans have been specifically blocked by a court.
7 bans remain unchallenged but are presumably unenforceable under Stenberg because they lack health exceptions.
Ohio’s ban has been challenged and upheld by a court.
5 states have bans that apply after viability.
Utah’s ban has been specifically blocked by a court because it lacks a health exception.
Montana’s ban remains unchallenged but is presumably unenforceable under Stenberg because it lacks a health exception.
3 bans are currently in effect.
4 states have bans that include a health exception.
2 states broadly allow the procedure to protect against physical or mental impairment.
2 states narrowly allow the procedure to protect only against bodily harm.
27 states have bans without a health exception.
19 bans have been specifically blocked by a court.
8 bans remain unchallenged.
Alito had the option to dissent and write that the 10th amendment does exist and that other states have bans on PBA and that the people of the state of NJ and their legislature had the right to ban PBA and save the lives of Children about to be born.
Shame on him
I am not aware of any state that had PBA ban, that wasn't subsequently overturned by a federal court. Is there an exception?
Where is it written that conservatives have to be raving, activist pro-lifers? >>
conservatives are pro life.
Funny, I said last night that no matter who the nominee is, there would be some malcontents on FR who would oppose him/her and I was flamed for it. Looks like I was right.
For a good example of just how to do that I'd suggest you read Edith Jones' concurring opinion in McCorvey.
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.