Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by Spiff
Edited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Nice picture. Thanks...
Thought I’d ping you to make your day.
Nino, could you elaborate on why there was zero chance of this? You really seem to know what you're talking about. If you don't mind, could you explain it to someone like me who doesn't? Thanks.
If we get a Republican nominee who is a STRONG one, with widespread Repub. and Independent support, it's very possible he can carry the Republicans back into Congress with him. Especially since the margins of victory were SO close for the Dems last time.
Fantastic news!
And a significant accomplishment for Bush.
Maybe someone has the numbers, but aren't a number of "freshman" Dems conservative on a number of issues, including abortion -- the Rahm Emanuel strategy of defeating Republicans with conservatives?
In theory. In practice, abortion was legal at any point, with this application being bolstered by later cases.
Exactly.
Wonder if any of the “lesson teachers” are starting to realize that elections have consequences?
Awesome news indeed!
LEGAL BLOGS
Bench Memos: http://bench.nationalreview.com/
Scotusblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/
The Volokh Conspiracy: http://volokh.com/
Then you are very ignorant of the state of abortion law.
Please read up before misleading more people.
Maybe this defeat will prompt Stevens to finally resign. Worth some prayer.
And thank you George Bush!
Stevens and Souter were both appointed by lukewarm republicans. Those are the kinds of justices we should expect from a lukewarm republicat like Rudy. He will promise us a Scalila, but he will deliver another Souter. I'd rather wait another 4 years for a real conservative and pray the current court stays healthy. But we don't have to wait. The primaries are 10 months away.
This is going to upset the RINOS.
We have a left wing media in a feeding frenzy pushing common sense gun control and acting like whore-nalists rather than journalists, AN NOW
we have this which is going to invigorate the examination of the candidates.
Rudy Guiliani has a DOJ history, the lawyers there are government employee types. NOT a good candidate pool for USSC judges.
As a pro-life conservative, I have said all along (and been bashed much for it), that President Bush would accomplish as much for conservatism as any President in history.
He has NEVER backed off his pro-life stance, and here is proof that it MATTERS!
Thank You, Lord for this President, and thank You for this decision. In Jesus' Name, Amen!
There aren’t the votes. When the issue of medical marijuana came up, the Court voted 6-3 that a ban by Congress of even homegrown marijuana did not violate the commerce clause. The majority in that case was comprised of Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg. All six of those justices remain on the Court. What that proved was that the four liberals on the Court were not willing to change their stance on federalism, even when it was something they were sympathetic to (medical marijuana). Since all six of those justices are still on the Court, there’s really no chance at all that the Court would strike down the PBA ban for federalism reasons.
Thank you Chief Justice Roberts for bringing Kennedy over...I am so delighted.
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.