[PhiKapMom]

Enough is enough from these Federal Judges. Write/Call TODAY!

[PhiKapMom]

To read President Bush's comments before signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, please visit the daily Victory thread at:

363 Days to Victory '04 -- President Bush's Remarks on Signing of Partial Birth Abortion Ban

[onyx]

Any info handy on this jack-ass? Such as, which democrat president appointed him, his fax number, e-mail address, etc?

Yo, deport! You're thee best.......

[jmcclain19]

I love how the judge was saying he'd block it even before Bush signed the bill. Nice judicial ethics there.

[concerned about politics]

We are a representitive republic. We vote for representitives to speak for us. They have spoken for us.

If the courts choose to over ride the will of the people, then the representitives are not representing us by leaving these judges in place. If our representitives were to truely do their job, they'd impeach these judges for abuse of power

There's no taxation without representation. If the government doesn't represent us, we no longer need to pay taxes. If the courts decide our laws, we have no representation. That means no taxes.

[keithtoo]

Impeach this

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The judge is suffering from delusions of grandeur.He has NO AUTHORITY to stay anything.Congress passes laws and the da*n judges have no right to usurp them.The president should order the executive branch to carry out the enforcement and spit on the courts!

[William Terrell]

I am against abortion, unless necessary for the physical life of the mother.

That said, I'd like to put out some logic that I think we should deal with. Since I read Roe v Wade some years ago, I may be misremembering some things. I don't want to go reread it because, frankly, when I read it before I had to watch Walt Disney's Fantasia twice to wash the corruption out of my mind.

The basic way the SC ruled the anti-abortion laws in the states unconstitutional was the 9th amendment (rights retained by the people) "purviewed" through the 14th amendment (citizen of the US only, not a state and recognized only if "born or naturalized).

Any other considerations notwithstanding, The "born or naturalized" clause in the 14th, to the extent Roe relied on it, would have to mean actually, physically born, and out of the mother's womb.

I would think any court would have to follow what the SC rules for the reasons the SC used.

A law banning a partial birth birth procedure, and with the wording I last saw when I read the bill (it was when it was first posted here), it could be reasonably argued that it is an anti-abortion law. An anti-abortion law wouldn't, by the reasoning above, be constitutional based on Roe's interpretation of the constitution, which is alive and active.

My understanding is that a court can take "judicial notice" of precedents and other facts that bear on a case. It may be that even a conservative judge would have to use those considerations, that it be likely the SC would rule it unconstitutional under their previous notions of the post 14th amendment era constitution.

I'd like it to be otherwise, but this is how I read the situation.

[harpo11]

Will do bump!

[Salvation]

I guess this judge needs some prayers today!

Shall we pray that lightning knocks him off his horse or

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??

[Pippin]

I will pray that judge has a change of heart.

[pctech]

Ya know, I think it's high time we do what they did in "Back to the Future Part II" and outlaw all lawyers. These bastards can't even obey a law signed by our president. Talk about un-american.