Posted on 01/31/2006 12:54:25 PM PST by Jhohanna
The odd thing is that apparently aborting by another method the same fetus at the same time is OK, and there needs to be another method to kill non viable fetuses, or banning partial birth abortions would indeed be imposing an unreasonable burden on women. Kennedy's rather dyspeptic dissent therefore covers narrower ground than one might think. In fact, the ground is quite narrow.
How 'bout the Fifth Amendment that says that no one will be deprived of Life, Liberty, etc. without due process of law?
From a post from today on a law firm's Scotusblog.com:
"The Justices have twice considered that appeal at private Conferences this month, but have taken no action on it."
I don't think so. Maybe I'm reading between the lines but I think Kennedy is a vote to uphold bans on late term abortions. Remeber, the wall has to be taken down a brick at a time. It will be tedious and tendentious but worth it. Of course this first case is only about one procedure but he is definitely a vote to uphold a ban on the procedure.
I already told you, they are waiting on Alito. Come on now, don't argue for the sake of arguing. I wouldn't lie to ya.
I'm trying to get it straight, myself. The last action was "in conference" on 1/26, and it's at these conferences that they decide which cases to adjudicate. If it's on the calendar, as you said, they HAVE decided to adjudicate. If it's in conference, I believe, they are in the process of making that decision. That's all I wanted to be clear about.
"You never know, Justice Alito may not vote they way we think in order to establish himself a free thinker."
It really depends on how Catholic he really is and how closely he holds his religion. Catholics are BOUND to oppose abortion, by the Pope, by their faith. It's not an optional thing. There has been some wiggle room for politicians, some, but that wiggle room has been sharply tightened over the past several years, with denials of communion, etc.
Now, all of those politicians who are pro-choice, the Kerry's of the world, are very much cafeteria Catholics, Catholics in Name Only.
When you get serious, committed Catholics - like Roberts, like Alito - you are dealing with men who will literally lapse into apostasy of their faith if they do not stand against abortion.
There is not the slightest degree of doubt in my mind about how either Alito or Roberts will vote: both are very devout Catholics.
Thomas and Scalia, I don't know. Their religion did not figure as prominently in their vetting as Alito's and Robert's did.
An old accusation about Catholics in America is that they are not completely independent, that a foreign prince can dictate to them. For JFK, that wasn't true: he did what he wanted and only went through the pretenses of being Catholic, really. But for devout practicing Catholics, there actually IS truth in the charge: devout, practicing Catholics are not free agents. And there is no issue on which they are less free than abortion. More than any other issue, papal encyclical and curial rulings have come down thickly over the past two decades. There's no wiggle room.
The lukewarm don't care. But the devout are bound, and there is no "But I'm a public servant" exception to the demands of God.
I was worried about Kennedy, but after jwalsh forwarded the Stenberg case, I am deeply gratified that Kennedy seems to be (re)gaining (his moral) sense in his old age.
If the justices think the law is against their Catholic principles, they will follow the law. Their devoutness will be irrelevant.
Kennedy put some markers in that dissent (maybe for purposes of arguement, but they are there). He would have to abandon those markers to vote to ban all late term abortions involving non-viable fetuses, except where the physical health of the mother is seriously at risk.
Are you really suggesting that Catholic justices should rule according to Catholic principles rather than American judicial ones? Abortion aside, can't you see problems with that?
Do you want the death penalty overturned simply because Rome is against it? I happen to support the death penalty, and it is constitutional. Are we beholden to the Constitution or Benedict XVI?
Heck, they probably think the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Nope...enter JRB!
While there may be more actual hispanics, a black woman would be politically bullet-proof.
I believe that we do have the votes to strike down partial birth abortion and uphold that law.
The four conservatives will, I expect, vote to uphold the partial birth abortion ban.
Up the thread, jwalsh gave a link to Kennedy's dissent in Stenberg. It is strong stuff. It's not just a legal analysis: he goes for the visceral, and it's clear that he sees the issue viscerally.
Overturn Roe completely?
I agree that Kennedy probably won't vote for that.
But strike down partial birth abortion?
I think Kennedy's there.
That's a start.
And when the world doesn't end even though there is finally a real restriction on abortion, it will be easier next time.
There will probably be an incremental dismantling of Roe, with the States passing more laws and the Supremes ruling "That's ok".
To outright overrule Roe may take another vote.
"If the justices think the law is against their Catholic principles, they will follow the law. Their devoutness will be irrelevant."
Of course that cannot be so.
If one is really devout, one believes in Heaven and Hell.
You don't damn yourself to Hell for a transient cause.
Particularly since it's the job of the justices to say what the law IS, they aren't bound by their own precedents, and will be able to follow the law AND their consciences. Of course their belief system matters.
Nonsense. "Choice" as an American judicial principle is made out of hole cloth. There is no conflict to posit. Capital punishment on the other hand *is* in the Constitution. Making religion a burden where Roe is concerned is a stalking horse.
I was asking Vicomte the question because of this remark:
"for devout practicing Catholics, there actually IS truth in the charge: devout, practicing Catholics are not free agents."
This implies to me that the Vatican's position on ANYthing would have to take precedence, which is why I was asking to have that clarified!
Since the law is all about the transient in your lexicon, don't be a lawyer, and in particular, don't be a judge. Do you know how many votes Alito would have obtained, if the said the canon law of the Catholic Church trumps the secular law of the United States?
Bump--show time.
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.