Posted on 04/18/2007 8:16:26 AM PDT by fungoking
I'd volunteer to put large forceps on her head and use an Oreck to vacuum out what little brain material she has remaining in that lefty scull of hers. Then the other three leftys.
Just lable abortion providers as “Dahmeresque.” That should help.
mark
BUMP!
You said it brother! How can ANY sane, moral & rational person think otherwise.
This so great! I love having good news for a change.
God Bless Our President and The Supreme Court.
I failed to point out the first announcement of this ban is in breaking news and has almost 500 posts now..I just post on both.
;)
This brings to fruition the long-awaited “swing vote” of Justice Kennedy on the issue. It has been long-believed that if properly presented along the lines of his own previous writings, that Justice Anthony Kennedy...who voted for the right of abortions previously...would be compelled to make those caveats he uttered more than cheap dicta.
It needs to be pointed out that we did not in fact replace any liberals or court activists on this issue. What finally happened was that Justice Kennedy was persuaded to recognize the over-breadth of the pro-abortionists claims....claims which expressly discussed in prior dicta stating where and when such claims would be invalid.
O'Conner was an activist on this issue. Kennedy has always supported a ban on partial-birth and parental notification. Kennedy was not persuaded, that has been his position. Kennedy supports a women's right to abortion, but he believes it can be regulated. O'Conner opposed any restrictions on abortions.
Good for you MEG33 This is indeed good news and a huge bump for your tag line,too.
The issue had to be precisely framed to get the result we wanted here. It had to squarely go to the issues he stated in his dissenting opinion in the Nebraska Partial Birth Abortion case. As the above-noted CSM reported in the past October:
With the possibility of the court divided 4-4 on the issue, Kennedy may wield the decisive vote. If he sticks to the analysis in his dissent in the Nebraska case, court watchers say the law will be upheld. If he adheres to his strongly held belief in stare decisis - affirming precedent even when a justice disagrees with it - the federal law will be struck down.Apparently the Chief Chustice was able to manuever the issue precisely the way it needed to go to get Kennedy to vindicate your belief that "Kennedy has always supported a ban on partial-birth and parental notification."But Kennedy's dissent in the Nebraska case suggests another possibility. In 1992, Kennedy helped author a major abortion decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the central holding in Roe v. Wade that established a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Part of Kennedy's contribution to the Casey decision was a guarantee that the states could regulate abortion procedures provided the regulations didn't create a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion. In his dissent in the Nebraska partial-birth abortion case, Kennedy complained that the five-justice majority swept aside the guarantee he apparently wrote into the Casey opinion.
Now, six years later, Kennedy could uphold the 2003 federal law under the theory that the same leeway guaranteed to state lawmakers in the 1992 Casey decision also exists for federal lawmakers. In effect, he would be applying stare decisis to his interpretation of Casey - an interpretation that would undercut the Nebraska ruling as being an unfaithful application of the 1992 Casey precedent. One complicating factor to this scenario, however, is Justice Antonin Scalia's insistence that the Casey abortion precedent (and Roe) must be overruled.
This was a closer issue than that, and it was a slugfest that likely went down to the wire in Chambers.
Man, I would have sworn I typed Chief Justice...
Perhaps it was closer, but I was confident Kennedy would come through in this case. Kennedy was on the right side in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that barred public facilities and public employees from performing abortions and required physicians to test for the viability of any fetus believe to be more than 20 weeks old. Kennedy was on the wrong side of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992, but I have a feeling Kennedy vote made them weaken the ruling as he probably did in today's ruling, but on the flip side. And Kennedy was on the right side of Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000 where the court struck down a state law that banned partial-birth abortions. O'Conner was the fifth vote and Kennedy dissented. If O'Conner was still on the court, we would have unqueestionably lost today.
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.