Sandra Day O'Connor retiring

[Texsox]

UK Article

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_judge...t_050701-01.wmv

 

Bork is not a happy camper. Pretty amusing stuff.

[Texsox]

(Update)-Eschaton writes: In the early 90s, when the Democrats were in control of the Senate, President Clinton consulted with the ranking minority member, Orrin Hatch, about SC appointments. Hatch himself bragged in his autobiography that he was the person who suggested Ginsburg and Breyer.  This rather important fact will, of course, be left entirely out of the media conversation on this topic."

 

                                          -----------------

 

I saw Orrin on Hannity and Colmes a few months ago. Hannity tried to disprove the fact that Hatch did submit names to help the nomination process along with President Clinton. Hatch told him that was the truth and dispelled Hannity's attempt to rewrite that part of history.

 

Interesting, I had not known that. Score one for Clinton.

[Texsox]

Dear James,

 

The Fourth of July is a time for family, fun and fireworks.

 

But something happened today that ought to remind everyone what this holiday really symbolizes -- the freedom that makes America great.

 

That's exactly what hangs in the balance now that Sandra Day O'Connor has resigned from the Supreme Court.

 

This is no small deal. Over and over, she was the Justice who cast the critical vote in 5-4 cases deciding the most important issues in our nation.

 

Here's our bottom line for the johnkerry.com community heading into the holiday weekend: we can never let her be replaced by a Justice who does not respect the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade, and who doesn't understand the freedoms protected in our Constitution.

 

So, this weekend, as you enjoy the Fourth -- take a minute to think about what it means, and come back on Tuesday morning ready to fight for our freedom. It's all at stake now, and we need to come together more than ever.

 

Get ready,

 

John Kerry

 

I love it when John sends these little notes to me. I don't know where he finds the time. I hope he doesn't mind me passing them on.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The media might think abortion is the central issue here but they've been wrong before. Bush has never advocated overturning Roe v Wade & he well knows that about 60% of Americans do not want to see that happen.

 

But I advocated before that Roe v Wade can be overturned if Congress passes legislation insuring the right. The partial birth abortion bill which Bush signed into law does exactly that. I think if most Americans understood that the PBA law would supplant a woman's right to choose they would be more inclined to seeing Roe v Wade struck down.

 

From a legal perspective RvW is a terrible decision because it is a gross effort to legislate from the bench. They had to manufacture a right that is not expressed in the US Cons in order to establish a foundation for the decision. Since then it's evolved from a narrow 3rd term right to a liberal day after one. A better court could have still established the right under a stricter constitutional sense.

 

But that has never been a core issue for Bush. He has supported a woman's right to an abortion since his roots in Texas. He has opposed abortion on demand. The core issue for Bush is marriage & when a President advocates the need for a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional sense of the institution of marriage as the law of the land it should come as no surprise that this will be his litmus test for the bench.

 

Over 70% of all Americans oppose any redefinition of marriage from the traditional. Bush has the people behind him.

 

The tough road ahead for the Dem is to find justices who are liberal on the issue of abortion but strongly conservative on the issue of marriage. A failure to do so means that Bush will likely be able to appoint a justice who is strongly conservative on both issues.

[jackie hayes]

Fwiw, from the NYT, conservative groups are lining up to oppose Gonzales b/c he's not conservative enough. Andy Card met w/ a group of conservative lawyers (including Edwin Meese -- blast from the past, huh?) who warned him against nominating the Attorney General.

 

Again, take it fwiw. Personally, I doubt this is very meaningful. Maybe an act of sorts -- 'If conservatives don't like him, then how bipartisan and uniternotadivider-y Bush must be to appoint him anyway', etc. Not that conservative groups would like him, but they know it will be difficult to avoid a filibuster fight w/ someone they'd prefer. And anyway, Bush (supposedly) is very close to him, and what can these groups really do to their lame duck president?

 

We'll see. I think the White House could go either way, but jmho.

[Balta1701]

The media might think abortion is the central issue here but they've been wrong before.  Bush has never advocated overturning Roe v Wade & he well knows that about 60% of Americans do not want to see that happen. 

 

The reason that Bush has never advocated overturning Roe v Wade is that Bush has never actually answered the question "Do you want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. He spins his way out of it and answers a totally different question. For example, he was asked that question point blank during the debates last October. He chose not to answer.

 

From Debate 3 last fall...

Question 14: Would Bush like to overturn Roe v. Wade?

 

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, I want to go back to something Sen. Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own.

 

He said -- and this will be a new question to you -- he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?

 

BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test.

 

SCHIEFFER: Sen. Kerry, you'd like to respond?

 

KERRY: Is that a new question or a 30-second question?

 

SCHIEFFER: That's a new question for Senator -- for President Bush.

 

KERRY: Which time limit...

 

SCHIEFFER: You have 90 seconds.

 

KERRY: Thank you very much.

 

Well, again, the president didn't answer the question.

 

I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.

 

So I don't intend to see it undone.

See, he totally refused to answer the question, and instead answered the "litmus test" question.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Ok, but you have to go back to Texas as well. To the best of my knowledge he never advocated overturning it when he was the gov. But we know he's advocated a US Cons amendment to protect traditional marriage so it would be nieve of the media and any one else to believe that's not going to be a litmus test.

 

On the abortion issue overturning Roe v Wade does not mean the end of abortion rights for women. Congress has already passed the partial birth abortion ban law & a woman's right to an abortion is both clearly defined & regulated so to speak in that law. I believe the exact same regulations for abortion rights exist in the Violence Against Mothers act as well.

 

The point being that even if Roe v Wade is overturned on the grounds of it being unconstitutional (basically implying that Blackman overstepped his bounds in establishing a right that is not evident in the US Cons itself) Congress has shown it's support for abortion rights in two pieces of legislation that were signed into law. If Roe v Wade is overturned then so will the decision against the PBA law & it will become the law of the land both establishing & regulating abortion rights.

 

The only threat to abortion rights then would be someone challenging the constitutionality of PBA & it's establishment of abortion rights to begin with.

That's next to impossible. Such a decision would not only defy the intent of both the legislature & executive branches. My guess is that the USSC would not even both to hear such a challenge.

 

Of course you won't hear reality like this out of radical groups like NOW.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm gonna save my opinion on a new Supreme Court Justice until one is nominated.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It's ironic that conservatives bash O'Connor because of her opinions on abortion but they all but ignore her opinions on church & state.

 

Religion in the Public Schools

6/14/04 - The USSC ruled 5-3 that Newdow lacked prudential standing to pursue his claim because his claim is inextricably intertwined with a family law matter.

Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor and Thomas issued dissenting opinions arguing among other things that Newdow had standing and that his claim fails on the merits because recitation of the Pledge is not coercive, is nonsectarian, and acknowledges the religious aspects of our history without advancing or endorsing religion. Newdow filed a request for reconsideration, but it was promptly denied.

 

If their dissenting opinion had been the majority opinion it would have replaced the Lemon Test.

 

Good News Club v. Milford Central School District (New York)

USSC ruled 6-3 against the districts attempt to stop the adult-run bible group meeting after school. Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Thomas, Scalia, & Breyer ruled in support of Good News Club.

Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented.

 

 

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (Texas)

USSC 6-3 struck down a policy allowing student-led prayer at high school football game.

Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented.

 

Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey v. Stafford Township School District (New Jersey)

10/15/04 - 3rd Circuit upheld the right for a parent led evangelical group to advertise on school grounds.

 

VMI students forbidden to pray before dinner.

04/04/03 4th Circuit ruled VMI prayer violated Establishmetn clause because of the coercive nature of VMI's operatiosn & that March did not provide relevant analysis. VA Atty Genl filed a petition with the USSC but the Court denied certiorari in April 2004.

 

School forbidden to engage in clergy only led mentoring program

 

Doe v. Beaumont Independent School District (Texas)

A divided court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for further factual findings, ruling that whether the program is constitutional depends on whether the totality of the school district's mentoring and counseling programs constitute an endorsement of religion. After trial, the district court held in August 2002 that the program was unconstitutional because there were no comparable secular programs.

 

Chandler v. James (Alabama)

Wide range of officially sponsored religious activities challenged including student & clergy prayer in the classrooms, school assemblies, graduations, & sporting events.

7/13/99 - 11th Circ on remand from the USSC reaffirmed it's earlier holding that the entire injunction severely restricted student free speech rights. The USSC denied the plaintiff's petition for certiorari.

 

 

When reviewing the Appelate decisions the Sante Fe ruling seems to be the one that is referred to the most. Rehnquist, Scalia, & Thomas dissented.

It's very possible that O'Connor's replacement would side with them & that could sway Breyer to give them the majority in these school prayer related cases.

 

O'Connor's replacement could tip the scale in favor of school prayer.

[jackie hayes]

Odd, but interesting. NYT link. O'Connor's announced her retirement and Rehnquist has said nothing, yet Arlen Specter has proposed O'Connor -- did I stutter? -- for the Chief Justice position. If nothing else, it reinforces how highly Specter thinks of O'Connor, which is not good news for hardline conservatives.

[Texsox]

Dear Texsox,

 

Let's make our principles crystal clear right out of the box.

 

We will never support a Supreme Court nominee intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and undoing critical civil rights protections. And we will never accept a double standard that says, on a decision vital to America's future, President Bush's most extreme supporters can campaign all-out while you and I are urged to be silent.

 

I am asking you to endorse and help pay for a powerful message that will appear in the days ahead in newspapers across the country. Show the President and the Senate just how strongly you feel about protecting our fundamental freedoms:

 

http://contribute.johnkerry.com/

 

From the range of choices the White House is currently considering, America and the Constitution would be best served if President Bush chooses a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was named to the Court by no less of a conservative than Ronald Reagan and approved unanimously by the United States Senate.

 

But President Bush's most extreme supporters are demanding a nominee who doesn't think or act anything like Justice O'Connor. They want a rigid ideologue who will reverse what President Bush has called the "settled law" of Roe v. Wade, one who will support their efforts to use the Supreme Court as a battering ram to undo decades of progress on civil rights, Roe v. Wade, and privacy.

 

They want something else as well.

 

They want you and me to participate in this momentous debate about fundamental freedoms with one hand tied behind our back. They actually expect us to step aside while they roll over our rights. Let's prove that we will never let that happen.

 

http://contribute.johnkerry.com/

 

While they unleash a multi-million dollar advertising campaign on behalf of President Bush's choice in close coordination with the White House, you and I are supposed to remain silent -- lest we be charged with "rushing to judgment."

 

While they conduct a no-holds-barred effort to brush aside any and all questions about the nominee's record and his or her commitment to protecting individual freedom, you and I are supposed to be silenced for fear of being called "obstructionists" and cowered by their threat to revive the "nuclear option."

 

That's worse than unacceptable. It's un-American, and it's not how we carry on public debate in the greatest democracy on earth. Show them that, with the future of the Supreme Court on the line, we won't stand on the sidelines:

 

http://contribute.johnkerry.com/

 

I know I can count on your support in making the following commitment: I will insist on a complete and full examination of the record of President Bush's nominee. And, if that nominee is intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and essential Supreme Court protections for civil rights, I will use every option I have as a United States Senator to keep that nominee off the Court.

 

Sincerely,

 

John Kerry

[Mplssoxfan]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Seems as if someone has some unretired campaign debt.

[Texsox]

Interesting that Kerry feels he can use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test but the GOPernauts can not. :headshake Stuff like that is just so wrong.

 

Like dj, I'll wait for the nominee before making a judgment. I will also look more at actual decisions than answers on personal beliefs. I believe that Judges are able to set aside personal beliefs and interpret the law.

 

I also trust our constitution and hope that the GOP and Dem avail themselves of all tools before a Judge is sworn in. A good hard look at the candidate and a proper review through the system is important.

[southsider2k5]

Interesting op-ed in the Trib yesterday about the history of this court.

 

Court choices unpredictable

GOP presidents chose 7 of 9 justices, but only 3 are reliably conservative

 

By Jan Crawford Greenburg

Washington Bureau

Published July 11, 2005

 

 

WASHINGTON -- At John Roberts' confirmation hearing for a federal judgeship two years ago, Sen. Dick Durbin confronted him with a statement Roberts had made about the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

 

"Many people had characterized it as a very conservative court," Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, told Roberts. "But you said, `I don't know how you can call the Rehnquist court conservative.'"

 

"What," Durbin asked Roberts, who is now a leading candidate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, "were you talking about?"

 

Roberts ticked off a list of recent cases: The Rehnquist court had reaffirmed Miranda, the landmark decision on reading defendants their rights. It had reinforced Roe vs. Wade, which said a woman had a constitutional right to an abortion. It had strengthened bans on school prayer and upheld limits on campaign contributions. It had given criminal defendants greater constitutional rights in their sentencing.

 

"It's much more complicated than those labels," Roberts said.

 

In the two years since that hearing, the court has only made his point stronger. In case after case, the court--with seven of nine justices appointed by Republican presidents--has confounded and disappointed conservatives. It has refused to abandon sweeping constitutional rulings of previous courts and, in some cases, it has extended them.

 

The court has preserved affirmative action in college admissions and given greater constitutional protection than ever to gays and lesbians. It has raised questions about the death penalty and ruled that criminals who killed as juveniles and the mentally retarded cannot be executed.

 

As chief justice for the last 19 years, Rehnquist has scaled back the court's role in creating new rights, a clearly conservative trend. And liberal groups would strongly disagree with the thesis that the Rehnquist court has drifted left, pointing to a series of decisions that scaled back congressional power.

 

"One of the hallmarks of this court is the invalidation of dozens and dozens of laws that protect our rights, our environment, women and civil rights," said Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice.

 

But most liberals would acknowledge the court has not realized their worst fears by a long stretch. And conservatives see a Rehnquist court that has, on almost every high-profile, hot-button ideological issue in recent years, sided with the left.

 

Those decisions have galvanized the right to push the White House for a justice who will be more predictably and reliably conservative. As Bush pores over files of several prospective nominees to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor--a less-than-predictable appointee of President Ronald Reagan--conservatives are all but begging him not to replicate what they see as mistakes of previous Republican administrations.

 

"I'm tired of rolling the dice," said one former Republican official, who asked not to be identified.

 

Groups on both sides of the ideological spectrum are poised for an extraordinary fight over O'Connor's replacement. The left points to her swing votes in areas of race, religion and abortion and is vowing to fight any nominee who would shift the court in the other direction. The right also points to those cases, urging the president to seize the opportunity to make a difference.

 

But as previous Republican administrations have seen all too well, it's not so easy to predict how nominees will decide future cases. Of the seven Republican appointees, only three have been reliable conservative votes: Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The other four range from the outright liberal--Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter--to the more moderate O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

 

"There's no way of knowing for sure how they'll come out on cases and issues," said Christopher Landau, a partner at the Chicago-based law firm Kirkland & Ellis, who clerked for Scalia and Thomas. "A president is limited to getting a general sense of them. The rubber hits the road up in the court, when you apply general principles in specific cases."

 

Democratic presidents have fared much better. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, have generally voted as expected, although Breyer has sided with conservatives in a limited way in a handful of cases, especially in criminal law.

 

Also, in a case last month, Breyer agreed that a 10 Commandments monument could remain on the Texas state capitol grounds, although he disagreed with the reasoning in Rehnquist's opinion.

 

But it's mostly Republicans who have had occasion to rue their appointees, and conservatives point to a combination of factors they say Bush should keep in mind when making any nominations to the Supreme Court.

 

"In the past, the White House hasn't been sufficiently careful about assessing the potential justice's approach to the law generally," said Michael Carvin, a Washington lawyer and a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "You can't predict specific outcomes, but that will tell you a lot about whether they correctly recognize a limited judicial role."

 

Using history as a guide, conservatives say the ideal nominee would be a well-established conservative with a strong backbone, a person who has taken an unpopular position or two and weathered the subsequent storm without weakening.

 

Those guidelines help explain the right's enthusiasm for 14-year Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and its apprehension over lesser-known, more recently appointed candidates, such as Judge Edith Brown Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

 

That represents a shift in thinking from 15 years ago, when the White House, stung by the defeat of Robert Bork, concluded that a nominee without a long record would be easier to confirm.

 

Bork, nominated by Reagan to replace retiring Justice Lewis Powell, was defeated after Democrats picked apart his record, including the language in many of his opinions and writings.

 

Partly in response, some Republican nominees after Bork lacked a clear ideological framework or any real record. Souter, an eccentric and reclusive New Hampshire native, was President George H.W. Bush's first nominee, and former administration officials say he falls into that category.

 

Bush nominated Souter after winning assurances from John Sununu--Bush's White House chief of staff and a former New Hampshire governor--and from Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) that Souter was a solid conservative.

 

But Souter, who had served as the state's attorney general and on its Supreme Court, had not grappled with the constitutional concerns tackled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only were Sununu and Rudman unaware of his philosophy, but Souter did not really have one yet, having only been on a federal court for a few months.

 

Upon his arrival at the court, Souter forged a friendship with retired Justice William Brennan, another Republican appointee who became a liberal giant. Such relationships also can help shape a justice.

 

On a more complex note, simply because a conservative joins the court does not necessarily mean it will take a certain path, because the justices define themselves in part in relation to one another.

 

When the reliably conservative Thomas joined the court in 1991, for example, court watchers detected a noticeable, counter-intuitive shift by other justices to the left. That was the term in which the court refused to overturn Roe and struck down organized school prayer as unconstitutional.

 

Groups on the left defend such shifts. They say that once individuals ascend to the Supreme Court, they may take more thoughtful or expansive positions on constitutional issues.

 

But Republicans see them as unprincipled bows to outside pressure.

 

Former Republican officials also complain that justices from outside Washington get swept up in the city's social scene and soon expect invitations to embassy parties and opera balls. With court-assigned drivers transporting them to elite functions, they can find themselves drifting to mirror more liberal, urban elite opinion, some say.

 

That begins to explain Californian Kennedy's drift to the left, the officials said. He was nominated in 1987 to replace Powell after the failed nominations of Bork and Douglas Ginsburg. As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Kennedy did not have the kind of controversial decisions or writings that led to Bork's defeat.

 

After 17 years on the bench, Kennedy has proven to be unpredictable and, on some hot-button cases, unreliable for conservatives. With sweeping language, he has written controversial decisions scaling back the use of the death penalty and extending constitutional protections to homosexuals.

 

But he also sometimes casts a conservative vote, especially in religion and states' rights cases.

 

- - -

 

Conservative' court hasn't always ruled conservatively

 

With seven of the nine current Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents, the court was widely expected to be more conservative than has sometimes been the case. The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor could change that, however. Some notable rulings from the current court:

 

KEY

 

X = Voted with majority

 

Y = Voted with minority

 

ABORTION

 

2000

 

Stenberg vs. Carhart

 

Struck down a Nebraska law banning "partialbirth" abortions.

 

Margin: 5-4

 

LIBERALS

 

X-Stephen Breyer

 

X-Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

X-David Souter

 

X-John Paul Stevens

 

MODERATES

 

Y-Anthony Kennedy

 

X-Sandra Day O'Connor

 

CONSERVATIVES

 

Y-Clarence Thomas

 

Y-William Rehnquist

 

Y-Antonin Scalia

 

RELIGION

 

2000

 

Santa Fe vs. Doe

 

Struck down a Texas school district's policy allowing student-led prayers before high school football games.

 

Margin: 6-3

 

LIBERALS

 

X-Stephen Breyer

 

X-Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

X-David Souter

 

X-John Paul Stevens

 

MODERATES

 

X-Anthony Kennedy

 

X-Sandra Day O'Connor

 

CONSERVATIVES

 

Y-Clarence Thomas

 

Y-William Rehnquist

 

Y-Antonin Scalia

 

LAW ENFORCEMENT

 

2000

 

Dickerson vs. U.S.

 

Reaffirmed the rights of suspects to be given Miranda warnings before being questioned while in custody.

 

Margin: 7-2

 

LIBERALS

 

X-Stephen Breyer

 

X-Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

X-David Souter

 

X-John Paul Stevens

 

MODERATES

 

X-Anthony Kennedy

 

X-Sandra Day O'Connor

 

CONSERVATIVES

 

Y-Clarence Thomas

 

X-William Rehnquist

 

Y-Antonin Scalia

 

DEATH PENALTY

 

2005

 

Roper vs. Simmons

 

Ruled that the death penalty may not be applied to those who murder as juveniles.

 

Margin: 5-4

 

LIBERALS

 

X-Stephen Breyer

 

X-Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

X-David Souter

 

X-John Paul Stevens

 

MODERATES

 

X-Anthony Kennedy

 

Y-Sandra Day O'Connor

 

CONSERVATIVES

 

Y-Clarence Thomas

 

Y-William Rehnquist

 

Y-Antonin Scalia

 

2002

 

Atkins vs. Virginia

 

Ruled that mentally retarded criminals may not be executed.

 

Margin: 6-3

 

LIBERALS

 

X-Stephen Breyer

 

X-Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

X-David Souter

 

X-John Paul Stevens

 

MODERATES

 

X-Anthony Kennedy

 

X-Sandra Day O'Connor

 

CONSERVATIVES

 

Y-Clarence Thomas

 

Y-William Rehnquist

 

Y-Antonin Scalia

 

GAY RIGHTS

 

2003

 

Lawrence vs. Texas

 

Struck down state laws prohibiting gay sex.

 

Margin: 6-3

 

LIBERALS

 

X-Stephen Breyer

 

X-Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

X-David Souter

 

X-John Paul Stevens

 

MODERATES

 

X-Anthony Kennedy

 

X-Sandra Day O'Connor

 

CONSERVATIVES

 

Y-Clarence Thomas

 

-William Rehnquist

 

Y-Antonin Scalia

 

1996

 

Roemer vs. Evans

 

Overturned a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting laws that protect homosexuals from discrimination.

 

Margin: 6-3

 

LIBERALS

 

X-Stephen Breyer

 

X-Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

X-David Souter

 

X-John Paul Stevens

 

MODERATES

 

X-Anthony Kennedy

 

X-Sandra Day O'Connor

 

CONSERVATIVES

 

Y-Clarence Thomas

 

Y-William Rehnquist

 

Y-Antonin Scalia

 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

 

2003

 

Grutter vs. Bollinger

 

Ruled that colleges and universities may consider an applicant's race in deciding admissions but may not use strict quotas.

 

Margin: 5-4

 

LIBERALS

 

X-Stephen Breyer

 

X-Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

X-David Souter

 

X-John Paul Stevens

 

MODERATES

 

Y-Anthony Kennedy

 

X-Sandra Day O'Connor

 

CONSERVATIVES

 

Y-Clarence Thomas

 

Y-William Rehnquist

 

Y-Antonin Scalia

 

Sources: Tribune archives, U.S. Supreme Court

 

Chicago Tribune

 

----------

 

[email protected]

[JUGGERNAUT]

http://www.csa.com/hottopics/roe/overview.php

This is a very good article on abortion & RvW. From latest media research surveys & polls only 60% of Americans do not want to see RvW overturned. Somewhere in the 40% who do & the 60% who do not lie the majority of us.

 

What we seek is an alternative. Roe is clearly outdated & requires a judicial review since it's foundation was predicated on the progress of medicine some 30 yrs ago. A LOT has changed since then. In particular our understanding of fetal viability & what that means to personhood.

 

The foundation for RvW stems from Blackman's understanding of medicine at the time which supported the belief that a fetus can not be considered a person before birth. Though he became more liberal as the years went by his original trimester decision demonstrates a strong belief that has the fetus matures the doubt for whether it should be considered a person grows stronger. This is clearly evident in his 3rd trimester definition which clearly places the life of the unborn 2nd only to the survivial of the woman.

Not her mental health or physical consquences of birth but her survival.

 

What is more interesting is where the court stood in

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992):

Dissenters: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, & White - voted to uphold the state's provisions & overturn Roe v Wade. Only Blackman and Stevens voted to continue to "protect the right to choose as a fundamental right under Roe by subjecting state restrictions to strict scrutiny." Which means

at the time 7 justices no longer felt the constitution supported abortion as a fundamental right.

 

More recently:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/bioethic...qs/a0027734.cfm

2000 5-4 decision effectively struck down all state laws banning partial-birth abortion.

 

2003 PBAB Act passed. Fed judges in CA, NE, & NY prevent enforcement.

All 3 judges declared it unconstitutional (Hamilton, Casey, & Koft). The US Justice Dept has filed an appeal to the USSC against the CA & NE rulings.

 

Unlike the 2000 decision there was only 1 groun: absense of a "health" exception. However the PBAB contains such an exception:

- when a mother's life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including that of which is could be caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

 

That is certainly in keeping with Blackman's 3rd trimester ruling in RvW.

But it is not in keeping with the real travesty which is Doe v Bolton.

It amazes me how we rarely ever hear this ruling & yet DvB is what changed the nation from being one that tolerates abortion to one that recommends it.

 

DvB essentially interpreted Blackman's 3rd trimester ruling to mean:

any & all factors for which one would visit a doctor in the medical community are considered relevan to the mother's health. That is as liberal as it gets & renders the 2nd & 3rd trimester ruliings to be inconsequential & irrelevant.

 

On Jul 8, 2005: A Federal Appeals court upheld the DvB ruling.

This essentially makes the current law of the land as it relates to abortion:

The constitution supports the destruction of a fetus at any point during it's lifetime in which it resides in any part of the mother. It matters not to the court what medical science says about the maturation process of the fetus, the viability of the fetus having zero dependancy on the mother, or the characteristics & intelligence a fetus might demonstrate towards establishing personhood. As long as the fetus resides in any part of the mother it's ok to suck it's brains out & slice it to shreds in order for extraction.

 

By latest surveys & media research on the subject 80% of Americans believe partial birth abortion should be illegal with the only exception being the survival of the mother. They do not accept the radically liberal position of the court that something as flimsy as grief a mother will feel from the loss as a legitimate condition to allow the partial-birth abortion.

 

*************************************

 

If Karl Rove has proven anything in the past 8 yrs it's that he's very far from stupid. If the Democrats want to make this an issue of RvW Rove will be more than happy to make an issue of DvB & the PBAB Act. We shall see how the liberals respond then when they justify murder with grief.

Edited July 13, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT