Tony Tony Tony
Abortion case was handed down this morning, and not surprisingly AMK sided with the conservative block. SCOTUSblog is on the beat here. He is also solidly with the conservatives on the use of race/affirmative action cases. So be forewarned, on the two hotbutton issues, the conservatives are going to have a solid majority.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 11:57 AM
15 Comments:
you can get the full text opinions here: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/04/supreme-court-upholds-partial-birth.php
Ginsburg had a great dissent, too bad it was a dissent...
Will he vote with the four dissenters if an "as applied" challenge arises with respect to women with medical needs for late term abortions? I'm guessing he will.
The answer to that is "he might." He was part of the Casey troika, but clearly his view of medical necessity and SDC's and DHS's view of medical necessity differ.
Rah Rah Right Wing!
Dude get your head examined.
The majority & dissent is no surprise. The most interesting is the Scalia & Thomas concurrence for 2 reasons:
-Alito & Roberts did not sign onto overulling Roe at this time. This is a somewhat good sign, as it might mean that overulling Roe would take more than 1 more justice (Replacing Kennedy).
-Scalia & Thomas seem to think that the law is unconstitutional on Commerce Clause grounds, but won't address the issue since it wasn't briefed.
This results in the weird situation where at least 6 out of 9 of the Sup. Ct. Justices think the law is unconstitutional, but it will be upheld because there will be no one case with all the issues in front of the court.
I generally support abortion but I am disgusted by this "medical procedure". How can anyone possibly support pulling out a living crying baby, cutting open its skull, and sucking out its brain?
The slippery slope argument just does not do it for me. There is such a thing as going too far in my book.
I love it when people who support partial-birth abortion oppose the death penalty. It speaks volumes of their character, intellect, and integrity.
Anon 7:59 - No one is saying partial birth is a desirous procedure, but Ginsberg very eloquently pointed out the errors in this ruling.
First, the Court has banned the procedure that removes the fetus after death by injection or brain suction in preference of the procedure that requires the doctors to tear the fetus limb by limb. Fetuses will still be "evacuated" (where did the Court get this term?), just in a more barbaric and horrific manner. This ruling has nothing to do with interest in the fetus, just the Court's desire to not see the form of an actual baby when it's presented with pictures of a fetus' remains.
Second, if a mother's life is in danger she now has to make a choice of putting herself in further danger by having surgery (C-section or hysterectomy) or have her fetus torn limb by limb. Fun choice!
Also, Anon 8:05, in the words of my roommate:
"I hate when people make that argument that way. I see that argument and I could see how it would make a lot of sense if you didn't say it like a complete douche bag."
Anyone else notice the conservatives' obsequious deference to Congressional "findings of fact" regarding the procedure? Didn't see that same deference in Morrison yo when Congress was trying to protect women's rights. Why am I not surprised?
8:05, one of my favorite bumper stickers: "Conservatives will fight for you until you're born. After that, you're on your own."
Carhart was one of the cases presented in our SCOTUS seminar, and the outcome was very close to the actual one. The sole exception was Thomas and Scalia actually did not join the majority opinion but only concurred in judgment. The Thomas concurrence re: interstate commerce is REALLY intriguing. It just highlights the tension between a conservative legal vs. political ideology (and conversely liberal also).
Expansive Interstate Commerce = New Deal, Great Society, No guns at school, less violence against women, etc., but also abortion and pot restrictions.
The thing is though, deep down, I'd still rather have an expansive commerce clause. Fine, if Republicans take over they can pass all sorts laws to please the base. But I'd rather that they have the power in the political branches, rather than preventing either party from doing anything. In other words, the good that has come from the expansive commerce clause far outweighs any negatives. Plus, a shift in the political climate can easily undo the actions of a political branch. How long now until this case is overturned?
Of course an expansive commerce clause aids liberalism! The lunatics over at the Volokh Inconsistency want to pretend that it "cuts both ways" and it "just shows that liberals should get behind federalism too (read: the evisceration of the New Deal state)."
But that's just their own band of intellectual dishonesty. Other than today's abortion decision, can you name a single other issue where a narrow ICC is going to help the left? ... Waiting... Bueller... Bueller... anyone [crickets].
I don't even count Raich b/c, as anyone who smokes marijuana in CA knows (or has a friend who does, like me), we've functionally decriminalized pot for anyone smart enough to find a quack doc, and the feds are limited to going after big growers in Eukiah. (Even today's abortion decision isn't going to actually affect more than about 100 women a year, if that -- as much as both sides want to pretend it's momentous.)
Meanwhile, the vision Scalia and Epstein and other commentators have is of a commerce clause turning on the 1789 Webster's First definition of 'commerce,' which would mean the end of most of the administrative state. That's the goal.
They can dress it up all they want in non-partisan gobbledygook but, so sorry, I'm not buying, no sale, no deal, try again next time. I like the commerce clause where it is. The fact is, pure libertarianism is really the crazy uncle in the attic of modern political discourse: no one buys it, no one follows it, the public has never embraced it (on the right or the left), and after the 2008 elections, it'll be even more of a dead letter.
Just like the commerce clause.
8:05 - even most people who support the death penalty don't support torture. and the thing is, forcing a woman to endure potentially life-threatening labor basically boils down to cruel & unusual punishment against someone who didn't do anything but act as a fertile receptor for some sperm. 8:23 got it right on the perverse choice many women will be faced with following this decision. remember, the vast majority of women who get late-term abortions aren't doing it for elective reasons.
I'm sorry but when someone characterizes women as nothing more than "fertile receptors for sperm" my eyes start rolling.
There may be valid medical reasons for doing this procedure in a few extremely rare cases; and perhaps in some of those cases an immediate abortion is the only option, but why does the doctor have to cut open the kids head and vacuum out its brain? I find it hard to believe that pulling a live baby is any different from pulling out a dead one. Would it be so wrong to give it a chance at survival and if possible give it a few more weeks at gestation before doing the procedure?
For the record, re: 9:04, it's Ukiah. Unless you're slying combining Eureka and Ukiah (which I suppose could make sense here).
Post a Comment
<< Home