Roberts is not even on the fucking bench yet and they are already attacking abortion… Hey Obama …kiss my butt.
The government’s appeal asks the high court to overturn the decision of a U.S. appeals court in St. Louis, which struck down the law as unconstitutional.
The dispute over this type of procedure — known medically as intact dilation and extraction and called “partial-birth abortion” by critics — amounts to a rerun of a case heard five years ago by the high court. However, the outcome is in doubt this time because the makeup of the court is changing.
In 2000, the justices ruled 5 to 4 to strike down a Nebraska law that made it a crime for a doctor to remove much of a fetus intact during a midterm abortion. This procedure is used by some doctors who perform abortions in the fifth or sixth month of a pregnancy.
In the past, the Supreme Court had said that women could choose to end their pregnancies until the time a fetus could live on its own, which occurs after the sixth month. These later-term abortions are more complicated and only a few doctors perform them.
That’s it…it is now time to call for ZERO TOLERANCE you either support a woman’s right to choose or go to hell and not expect a penny or votes … that means you Kaine, Casey , Taylor etc… this is getting beyond pathetic.
And now the weak Dems have put them selves into a corner ONCE AGAIN at protecting late term abortions… right before 2006 elections…wonder what lovely picture the GOP will bring out of dead babies… Fucking Geniuses
Or was this anti-choice Harry Reids plan all along….
to show that abortion is draining on the Democratic party…as the Democrats for Life love to tout?
It is a perfect set up… “you see our hands are tied… we have to nominate more Kaine’s and Casey’s because the GOP makes us look bad when we support abortion…”
Reid is just looking for a convenient way to dump abortion without looking like he ahs dumped abortion… this foul capitualion on Roberts is now beginning to reek to high heavens.
how is this new? How does it involve Roberts? And wouldn’t you rather they rule on this now, before O’Connor is replaced? If they do, won’t it be decided the same way?
Seriously, your outrage is legit, but this case has already been decided, the appeals court upheld it, and the current court (with Roberts) would uphold it again.
Finally, and this is important, what are you basing your absolute conviction that Roberts will overturn Roe on? He said he would respect Casey as a precedent. Was he outright lying? It is certainly possible. It might even be likely. But where do you get your certainty from?
And wouldn’t you rather they rule on this now, before O’Connor is replaced?
I believe the article states that it would be unlikely to hit the docket until after O’Connor is replaced. I am not an expert on court scheduling, but it makes good sense to me. Also, the article implies that there certainly is room for concern as it was upheld only by O’Connor’s vote in a 5-4 vote in the 2000 decision.
Sorry — for some reason I can’t get the article to load again to check on the details of my memory — it now requires registration. I think I screwed up the timeline on how many times this issue has been in court and at what level.
However, the one thing I am certain of is that the scheduling of this case will not take place until after O’Connor is replaced.
It has already been once to the Supreme Court.
My post was factually correct. From the article:
However, it will be several months before the justices decide whether to hear the abortion case. By then, President Bush’s replacement for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is likely to be on the court and in position to decide the case. O’Connor announced in July that she planned to retire.
and
amounts to a rerun of a case heard five years ago by the high court. However, the outcome is in doubt this time because the makeup of the court is changing.
(bugmenot has a user/pass if needed)
so there is a chance the Nebraska law will stand this time. That makes the next pick to the court of immediate importance (in the first year).
No it makes THIS pick to the court of immediate importance
you are correct. But Rehnquist would have voted the same way you assume Roberts will. See?
Therefore tell me again why Roberts is in the best interest of Dems?
that isn’t my point.
I’m only asking why you seem so sure that Roberts is going to vote to overturn Roe.
I’m not sure Bush wanted a judge that would do that.
I’m also not sure that he didn’t. I’m talking about why you think you know better than everyone else?
Roberts would be a lousy judge even if reproductive rights never came before the court. I’m not defending him as a judge at all. I am for a filibuster.
It’s your stance that I am questioning.
You think they won’t sell out their base. I think they are totally capable of doing that.
As a good friend used to tell me:
You don’t have to bite into shit to know what it taste like.
The tea leaves seem to point to an anti-Roe stance on his part. That and the enthusiastic support for him from the radical right, who’ve known him for 25+ years. What do they know that we don’t?
this appeal does not involve the Nebraska law–a case which was definitvely settled in 2000–but about the federal “PBA” ban.
Much confusion arises because Dr. Leroy Carhart’s name is attached to both.
what are you basing your absolute conviction that Roberts will overturn Roe on
Oh… just five years of lies and deciet… pray tell… what are you basing your trust on that this adminstration will keep it’s word?
I don’t have a conviction on how Roberts will rule on abortion. I don’t know.
I think it is possible that Bush’s anti-choice rhetoric and policies are calibrated. He may be willing to do everything short of appointing a judge that will actually overturn Roe.
I don’t believe the money masters of the GOP want to overturn Roe. They need to issue to be abstract and not concrete.
But I also think it is possible they have lost their minds and that they are willing to destroy their party by overturning Roe.
I don’t trust Roberts either way, and the right shouldn’t trust him either.
My only point is that I don’t understand your certitude. I don’t know, how can you?
Gimme a break today we are watching Brown investigate HIMSELF for FEMA’s failings… funny… how no one is SHOCKED that he is lying trough his teeth… just as no one will be SHOCKED that Roberts had been ling through his teeth in the hearings… with what little he did answer
money masters of the GOP want to overturn Roe
See… this is the fundamental difference between the GOP and the Dems. The GOP actually listen to their base and they earn their devotion and loyalty by pandering to their bsae whereas the NDN/DCL stooges think the best way to get devotion and loyalty from the base is to rob it blind, lie to it and kick it over board…
Gee and we wonder why the GOP keeps winning.
Overturning Roe will CEMENT the GOP base to the party…
means that you are not willing to take chances. Why should we take a “wait and see” stance on something that is important to us? You might call that a Neville Chamberlain moment.
Confusion sometimes arises because Dr. Lee Carhart figures prominently in both the previously-struck Nebraska ban (Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000) and this much broader federal version (Gonzales v. Carhart).
This particular case, like any other that is appealed all the way up the legal ladder, isn’t decided until the Supreme Court either rules or declines to hear it.
Do we know how Roberts will rule? No. But it’s egregiously “in your face” for the White House to request yet another appeal in this case with the Roberts vote imminent — and Democratic senators will be inexcusably derelict if they pretend to ignore it.
and heres the key to the timing
White House Appeals Abortion Case
How is this new?
Easy. Now the Bush Admin is confident they can overturn it. Why else would they appeal? Bush wants no exceptions to be made for the health of a woman. None.
How does it involve Roberts?
Case won’t be heard until spring. That’s how. And not one, but two new justices likely
Finally, and this IS important.
The antis don’t have to overturn Roe to win their battle. Roe doesn’t matter at all. Roe’s just the shell, the pea is over there. they can shut women’s reprodutive rights down, and they are already doing so, by trapping them at the state, and soon the national, level. With, im very sad to say, a hell of a lot of democratic support.
The hidden TRAP behind “Safe, Legal and Rare”
archive of links for TRAP law posts
What is TRAP? HR 748 TRAP law
I am in total agreement.
My own belief is that they’ll let Roe live on forever . . . on a feeding tube.
Most people have no idea of how compromised a woman’s purported right to an abortion is in many areas of the country today–right now. For far too many women, that guaranteed constitutional right already exists in name only. And that’s how they mean to let Roe survive.
That strategy is sure to keep their base fired up and ours asleep at the wheel. Perfect. And too damned many on “our” side–even though they well understand all that hangs in the balance–are willing to play along.
yes, all this is more or less new to me too, since the texas law passed was when i began noticing. and the more i read, and i am reading a lot about this as you know, the more obvious it is that they’ve found a way, an “end around” and all they have to do is,
shut down the doctors.
so we’ll have paper rights, in a paper-tiger country. those women of means will still be able to travel to other places and the rest of us?
It’s who sits on the bench when the decision is handed down. O’Connor could hear everything. But if she’s replaced the day before the decision is announced, her vote does not count, and the new justice would have a vote or voluntarily recuse him-/herself.
At least that’s how it was explained on the NewsHour a couple of weeks ago.
As you know, many of us have been standing up and saying we are losing faith in the democratic party because it is not supporting reproductive freedom. I won’t vote for an anti-choice dem and neither will many women I know.
Right now there is yet another anti-NARAL/ reproductive-rights-as a single-issue diary at a famous blog.
Right above that there in an analysis of a race in which the author states:
“Corzine (D) 48 (47)
Forrester (R) 38 (34)
Weird. There is no gender gap in this poll. Dems usually get a big advantage with women.”
Duh.
(This was not cross posted because I was asked to leave the site because I am a women’s studies type… actually I’m a molecular biologist, but I took the invitation anyways.)
Over the past few days, I’ve had a comment exchange with a woman there who actually believes that (a) the Democrats have been catering to NARAL, and (b) that this alleged behavior has led to Democratic losses in elections. Reality-based this thinking is not.
It’s almost as if the agenda has been set, and now’s the time to fix the facts.
I dunno…I think there are some other reasons why women may have peeled away from Corzine…like he’s a candidate who dumped his wife of 33 years, took up with a younger woman who runs a state union, then gave a $500,000 payment to the girlfriend as a parting gift when she got kicked to the curb. Now a lot of gals would say more power to any woman who can walk out of a short relationship half a mill richer, but Corzine’s side chick negotiates union contracts with the state ! I hope she can share the wealth with her rank and file come contract negotiation time.