I *hate* the 9th Court. Of course they would rule this unconstitutional. But how can it be?
1 posted on
01/31/2006 12:54:27 PM PST by
Jhohanna
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: Jhohanna
This is the 9th Circus. They'd say that the declaration of independence was unconstitutional if a Republican said that it wasn't.
To: Jhohanna
Bring it on, 9th Circus. There's at least two new sheriffs in DC.
3 posted on
01/31/2006 12:56:14 PM PST by
50sDad
(Racist: Anyone who is winning an argument with a Liberal.)
To: Jhohanna
Sounds to me like a nice test case for for our new Supreme Court. Just in time.
4 posted on
01/31/2006 12:56:23 PM PST by
joebuck
To: Jhohanna
On it is - to the Supreme Court!
6 posted on
01/31/2006 12:56:28 PM PST by
RAY
To: Jhohanna
You know where this is going?
PAGING JUSTICE ALITO!!!
To: Jhohanna
Hopefully the 9th circuit will retain the title of being the most overturned court in the federal system. We will know where Alito stands sooner rather than later.
To: Jhohanna
How's this for an argument: being forced to feed your children for 18 years amounts to forced labor, which is of course slavery. Therefore, any law preventing a parent from killing his underage chlldren is unconstitutional, and also violates the emancipation proclamation.
Let's run that baby through the 9th circuit, and see what they come up with.
11 posted on
01/31/2006 12:58:12 PM PST by
Shalom Israel
(Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
To: Jhohanna
The 9th Circus continues to dig themselves deeper into the pit of judicial contempt which will define them in the history books.
13 posted on
01/31/2006 12:59:59 PM PST by
TChris
("Unless you act, you're going to lose your world." - Mark Steyn)
To: Jhohanna
It is IMPOSSIBLE that a woman's health can be improved by a partial birth abortion -IMPOSSIBLE!!
The procedure is to induce labor, stop the labor with some part of the child still inside the woman and then KILL THE BABY. This actually TAKES MORE TIME than simply inducing labor and delivering the baby.
If they were really concerned about the mother's "Health" why take up precious time to kill the precious baby?
Why not skip the step that kills the baby?
15 posted on
01/31/2006 1:01:29 PM PST by
msnimje
(SAMMY for SANDY --- THAT IS WHAT I CALL A GOOD TRADE!!!)
To: Jhohanna
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito.
Yup, that's 5.
9th overturned again.
17 posted on
01/31/2006 1:03:03 PM PST by
jwalsh07
To: Jhohanna
Yep, this is the 9th Circuit. This district needs broken up really bad.
To: Jhohanna
...lacks an exception for cases in which a womans health is at stake. WTF? What possible kind of health issues could there be in a case where the child has been 95% delivered with maybe it's foot left in the birth canal, and then someone comes along and sucks it's brains out? Sounds to me like the only health issues at stake in PBA are those of the child.
It just reinforces my opinion that the legal system in this country (or maybe it's just this particular court, but there have been other cases elsewhere that make me wonder) is being run by a bunch of clueless idiots who can't think through a problem, but only worship legal process and stare decisis (and abortion) as their God. My God, for a gruesome practice like PBA, where the child has been delivered for all practical purposes, there can't be any health benefits to the mother that would be gained from slaughtering the child.
19 posted on
01/31/2006 1:04:58 PM PST by
chimera
To: Jhohanna
"unconstitutional" is such a buzz word for liberals. Everything seems to be unconstitutional these days...
23 posted on
01/31/2006 1:06:28 PM PST by
dubie
To: Jhohanna
lacks an exception for cases in which a womans health is at stake.That's because with PBA, it's not necessary to include one. And these judges know it. There is NEVER ANY need to EVER do a PBA on ANYONE.
24 posted on
01/31/2006 1:07:03 PM PST by
agrace
(Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me if you know so much. Job 38:4)
To: Jhohanna
An appeals court ruled Tuesday that the federal law banning 'partial-birth' abortion is unconstitutional Another good argument for overturning Roe V. Wade. How can anyone in their right mind claim killing full term babies is a constitutionally guaranteed right? This is considered a right of "privacy?"
27 posted on
01/31/2006 1:07:36 PM PST by
Casloy
To: Jhohanna
and lacks an exception for cases in which a womans health is at stake. When are the knuckleheads going to learn to put these clauses in, so that these anti-abortion laws do'nt keep getting swatted down?!
To: Jhohanna
Replying to myself here, but oh well..
Just a thought... as a strongminded and willed woman, I retain the notion and belief that it is a woman's right to choose her fate. However, I am so utterly pro-life, that I can't possibly be considered pro-choice. My stance has always been that the decisions to be made are between you, the father, and your conciense. And what Gods you believe in. God knows I could NEVER choose death. But if I could do anything, it would be to help people know what their choices could MEAN.
34 posted on
01/31/2006 1:14:14 PM PST by
Jhohanna
(Born Free)
To: Jhohanna
The first ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Perhaps the whole court will have a different opinion.
To: Jhohanna
And which clause is it that guarantees women's health? I can't find that one in my pocket Constitution.
46 posted on
01/31/2006 1:31:40 PM PST by
savedbygrace
(SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
To: Jhohanna
You never know, Justice Alito may not vote they way we think in order to establish himself a free thinker.
65 posted on
01/31/2006 1:59:24 PM PST by
keving
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson