Posted on 03/21/2023 7:06:37 AM PDT by Twotone
The Supreme Court vacated a lower court’s ruling that found a Missouri teenager had a right to seek permission for an abortion without parental knowledge.
The case, Chapman v. Doe, was initially brought by a 17-year old girl, “Jane Doe,” against a state court clerk, Michelle Chapman, who Doe argues violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights by saying her parents would have to be notified if she wanted to apply for a judicial bypass to the state’s abortion parental consent requirement. Before its abortion ban took effect, Missouri law required minors to secure written parental consent before obtaining an abortion, a requirement that could be bypassed with a judge’s permission following a court hearing.
Chapman argued she had quasi-judicial immunity because the judge told her he would not hear the case without notifying the parents, but the Eighth Circuit ruled against Chapman’s immunity claim.
In a short paragraph, the Supreme Court declared the judgement vacated, remanding it to the Eight Circuit to be dismissed as moot.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a four-page solo dissent, questioning what she sees as a “sharp uptick” in the use of an uncommon procedure called a “Munsingwear vacatur,” which allows the court to vacate decisions when a case becomes moot during its appeal. It also prevents the case from being used as precedent in the future.
“Our common-law system assumes that judicial decisions are valuable and should not be cast aside lightly,” she wrote. The procedure, she said, is typically available only in “extraordinary” cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I look at it this way. If they’re too young to buy a gun, they’re too young to get an abortion.
It’s sad that we are just barely holding onto our values as a nation and have to resort to having the sc maintain our nation. The dems want to pack the sc, and if they do, that Will definatrly be the end of our nation as we Wil. Have noone to legally uphold what we hold as sacred as a nation.
And too young to decide to mutilate the selves with irreversible surgeries just so,that they can live a life of make beleive.
Could someone please parse the title and tell me what was decided? I don’t speak piglegalese.
This will be part of a very long list of moronic opinions of Associate Judge Jackson.
We are being asked to accept opinions of someone who can’t (or is unwilling to) provide a definition of the word “woman.”
And too young to have sex. They were essentially raped, and THAT should be addressed.
Notice they used a 17 year old for their wedge case. Take the most extreme example and use it set precedence. Typical leftist tactic and they use it every time.
Abortionists can’t give kids an abortion without notifying the parent(s)
Could someone please parse the title and tell me what was decided? I don’t speak piglegalese.
______
I agree this was a very convoluted article. The original case was against a court clerk for upholding a state rule on parental notification. A state court ruled against the clerk & the Supremes over-ruled that ruling. At least, that’s what I get out of it, aside from the dissent from Jackson-Brown.
But if she wants to cut her boobs off...
Yeah, I ultimately saw the dissent from Kunta Kinte Jackson and knew is was a very favorable court opinion.
I hope her opinions get kicked to the curb from now on forever.
https://drexel.edu/law/about/news/in-the-news/2023/January/lisa-tucker-nytimes-munsingwear-vacaturs/
“The piece describes a new phenomenon in the Supreme Court that has gone almost unnoticed: the use of Munsingwear vacatur to get rid of appeals court decisions that further progressive values and objectives.”
Justice Ferengi Brown Jackson at it again! Call Captain Picard!
I’ve seen reports where big numbers of these younger teenage girls have gotten pregnant from adult men. Which would be statutory rape even if the girl involves fully consented to everything.
“her parents would have to be notified if she wanted to apply for a judicial bypass to the state’s abortion parental consent requirement”
That’s some nice legal kung fu there. Sure, you can bypass the parental notification law, but we will have to notify your parents that you are suing to bypass it :)
How about: “too young to drink a beer, too young to kill a baby”?
You hit it right on the head. Let the lefties state the age of consent for abortion, wiener removal, breast removal and we will apply that to guns, tobacco, and liquor!
You are never sufficiently mature to have the right to kill an innocent child.
Thank you.
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.