Judge Phyllis Hamilton
Click on the link. Same Judge OK'd Muslim Prayer
Posted on 06/01/2004 11:28:43 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:15:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A federal judge in California ruled yesterday that the partial-birth-abortion ban, signed into law by President Bush last year, is unconstitutional and can't be enforced against Planned Parenthood doctors.
"Today's ruling is a landmark victory for medical privacy rights and women's health," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the group that challenged the government's ban in California's Northern District Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Infuritating, but it's not unexpected. President Bush said he would fight any challenges and I believe he will fight to the end.
One unelected Clinton-appointed judge has the power over the wishes of an elected president and elected Congress. Something is wrong with the system.
The baby's last moments in life are filled with excruciating pain for the crime of inconvenience.
It is time for CONGRESS to exercise the power it has ALWAYS had to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal courts--namely, by removing abortion from their jurisdiction. It could do this by a simple majority. It could have done this by a simple majority anytime in the past 31 years.
It was not a judge. It was a Clinton appointee.
Very much agreed.
We have an asinine judicial system which lets one lousy judge trump both houses of Congress. Whatever happened to "of the people, by the people, FOR the people".
All the way to the Supreme Court -- take that to the bank.
This is why you don't want Ketchup boy making appointments to the bench.
How nice to have a President who means what he says and we can count on his word.
That's one of the most critical things in this election.
Interesting media study on this story. So far, the only news outlet I can find that mentioned the judge was a Clinton appointee is the Washington Times. The Washington Post, Baltimore Sun and AP did not mention it.
Today I wrote to our local news station asking if they would let us viewers know who appointed the judge. The news director wrote back, "why would are viewers care who appointed the judge?"
Is it a significant detail?
Only in America...
Absolutely critical; Roe V Wade illustrates how unelected tyrants donning black robes can usurp our Republic.
It is not the judicial system. It is Congress that will not asert its authority. The Executive Branch could bring the issue to a head by ignoring the judge's ruling and carrying out the directives of Congress.
That would put it to the Supreme Court in a hurry.
The same could happen where judges have ordered school districts how and where to spend money. Someone needs to step in and tell the judge we do not accept your ruling, you have overstepped your authority.
Won't happen but that is what should happen.
Where does it say, in the constitution, that killing fetuses is legal?
Not in the Constitution. Liberals on the court act less like judges and more like delegates to a constitutional convention.
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.