Posted on 01/31/2006 12:54:25 PM PST by Jhohanna
SAN FRANCISCO - An appeals court ruled Tuesday that the federal law banning 'partial-birth' abortion is unconstitutional, saying the measure is vague and lacks an exception for cases in which a woman’s health is at stake.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I hate to nitpick but the the law currently states taht the baby can be torn limb from limb unless it is completely delivered. To Americas great shame I might add.
You're welcome.
The first is that Stenberg has to be overturned if SCOTUS is to hold the PBA Act of 2003 constitutional. That brings us back to Casey. My guess is there are 5 votes to do just that.
The second school of thought is that Stenberg does not apply to the PBA Act of 2003 because Congress has explicitly banned an abortion procedure that partially delivers the baby into this world. I suspect that school of thought won't win out because Congress has defined a live baby as one completely delivered.
I have been urging them to change that law for some time now. To no avail of course. :-(
"The first is that Stenberg has to be overturned if SCOTUS is to hold the PBA Act of 2003 constitutional. That brings us back to Casey. My guess is there are 5 votes to do just that."
Based on what you posted (Kennedy's dissent), I think you're right. Of course, they don't really have to overturn things piece by piece. They can set a new standard all at once and dispatch with the loose ends in one decision.
The simplest would be to limit Roe to its holding: that abortion at will is constitutionally during the first trimester, but that the states or federal law can decide after that.
Who says the best initial strategy is to overturn Roe. Perhaps chipping away at it bit by bit, incrementally, is the path they will choose. I would predict just that. Eventually I believe it will be overturned, but until then the court may just take little bites, until the time is right is finally kill it off entirely.
That's a legitimate point, but Roe is a judicial abomination, anyway. Overturning it will not make abortion illegal, as you know. It will, however, put forth a reasoned statement refuting the notion something is "Constitutional" because you got enough people to scream it is.
Pussyfooting around with it only plays to the liberals strengths. Killing it decisively will show the fight hasn't been over "the right to choose" but over the right to exempt pet issues from normal Constitutional processes.
There aren't 5 votes to kill it decisively. There may be 5 votes to roll it back past Doe v Bolton to Roe v Wade but I doubt it. Kennedy will only go so far I think.
That says, to my mind, that a Catholic justice MUST follow the Church's teachings, regardless of what the law or constitution say. Will you be so accepting of such an idea when a moslem judge uses HIS religion to determine the law? If ANY judge bases his decisions purely on his or her church's teachings, that judge should be impeached.
I agree, which is why I maintain it's too early to move against Roe, and why the lower courts are trying to force the Supremes into a ruling that telegraphs their intentions.
If they can force a premature ruling against PBA, you can bet that is the ONLY thing the democrats will need as justification for future Borkings at ALL levels of the judiciary.
Yeah, you're right about Kennedy both ways. He won't scale back Roe, but he will vote to stop PBA.
"That says, to my mind, that a Catholic justice MUST follow the Church's teachings, regardless of what the law or constitution say. Will you be so accepting of such an idea when a moslem judge uses HIS religion to determine the law? If ANY judge bases his decisions purely on his or her church's teachings, that judge should be impeached."
Well OF COURSE he must! At least if it's a core teaching the breach of which would constitute a mortal sin. Supporting abortion is about the only thing in that category on the American scene.
Would I be so accepting of a Muslim judge?
Of course not.
He would be trying to impose false teachings as law.
Can't have that.
"If they can force a premature ruling against PBA, you can bet that is the ONLY thing the democrats will need as justification for future Borkings at ALL levels of the judiciary."
Which will lead to the nuclear option and the packing of ALL levels of the judiciary with Bush appointees.
Hell, if we're going to get bare knuckles nasty, once the nuclear option has been invoked on judicial appointments, why stop there? Kill the whole filibuster with the nuclear option. The more vicious politics get, the further down the road towards the Republic of Sulla we go...and at the end of that road, the majority party holds all the cards.
I don't believe that the constitution establishes anywhere that Catholicism is the "one true faith".
Your ideas are frightening.
Would you agree with a Jewish judge who ruled that all blue-laws must apply to Saturday instead of Sunday?
Would you agree with a Jewish judge who ruled that all blue-laws must apply to Saturday instead of Sunday?
Spare us your outhouse attorneying. You got the answer your passive-aggressive hyperbole deserves.
Why not discuss the ideas instead of attacking me?
I will spare you nothing. Don't like my posts? Go read something else.
I still maintain that ANY judge who makes a legal decision based solely on his church's teachings should be impeached. Now argue that point, or go play with your xbox.
One never does well by considering nothing but one's own strengths, and the opposition's weaknesses.
And it's not like fortunes of war can't turn in a day...
You think that was an attack?
You need to grow a pair. That was nothing but disdain for feeble reasoning.
I still maintain that ANY judge who makes a legal decision based solely on his church's teachings should be impeached.
Your insipid "argument" is a straw man, pure and simple. Come up with a proposition that doesn't insult the intelligence of other FReepers, and maybe you'll get treated like a peer.
Currently, your "argument" is as asinine as maintaining conjugal rights is equivalent to a "license to rape."
You've still failed to discuss the issue at hand.
When you grow up and want to have an adult discussion, come back and state your case. Explain why it's acceptable for a judge to rely solely on his religious beliefs to interpret the constitution or the law.
"Your ideas are frightening.
Would you agree with a Jewish judge who ruled that all blue-laws must apply to Saturday instead of Sunday?"
Just calling it like I see it.
And no, because the problem would be the same as before: he'd be wrong.
(I didn't recommend theocracy, you know. I said that men judge things based on their internal templates of right and wrong, and that devout Catholic men have an identifiable template when it comes to abortion in particular. That's not the same thing as advocating theocracy. It's just stating it like it is.)
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.