Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme top court allows abortion for Missouri inmate
Yahoo ^ | 10.17.05

Posted on 10/24/2005 10:19:48 PM PDT by Coleus

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court under new Chief Justice John Roberts cleared the way on Monday for a pregnant Missouri prisoner to obtain an abortion, despite objections from state officials.

In a brief order without comment or recorded dissent, the high court rejected Missouri's request to put on hold a federal judge's order requiring that prison authorities transport the inmate to a St. Louis clinic for an abortion.

How Roberts would rule on abortion was a major issue in his confirmation hearings in the Senate. This was the first abortion-related case the court has acted upon since he became chief justice, but since there was no written ruling it does not necessarily signify how he would vote on the issue in future cases.

Officials said Missouri has a prison policy that female prisoners will be sent out of their institutions for abortions only if the procedure is medically necessary.

They cited Missouri's laws that they said discourage abortions and encourage childbirth. They said any time an inmate is transported outside of a prison it raises possible security issues.

Even if there is some infringement of the prisoner's constitutional rights to choose an abortion, "a prison regulation may validly impinge on such rights if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," state officials argued.

According to the court record in the case, the woman, identified only by the pseudonym "Jane Roe," is approximately 16 or 17 weeks pregnant. Her attorneys said that for seven weeks prison officials have prohibited her from obtaining an abortion.

Talcott Camp, an attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the inmate, said in a statement that women do not give up the right to terminate a pregnancy when they enter prison.

"The state's actions in this case were contrary to Missouri's own long-standing policy when it comes to inmates' access to reproductive healthcare, in addition to policies in the federal prison system and all the state prison systems we know of," Camp said.

Gov. Matt Blunt expressed disappointment and said the high court's order "is highly offensive to traditional Missouri values and is contrary to state law, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from being spent to facilitate abortions."



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; abortionlist; aclu; babykilling; constitutionlist; inmates; missouri; prisoners; scotus; scotuslist; statesrights; tenthamendment; thepeopleofmissouri
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
This was the first abortion-related case the court has acted upon since he became chief justice, but since there was no written ruling it does not necessarily signify how he would vote on the issue in future cases. >>

or maybe it's poor leadership skills.

1 posted on 10/24/2005 10:19:49 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


2 posted on 10/24/2005 10:21:40 PM PDT by Coleus ("Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

The best interpretation for the anti-abortion crusaders (personally, I'm best described as neutral--shocking, I know) is that Roberts (and perhaps others who would like to overturn Roe v. Wade) have wisely decided not to raise the fear level of the pro-abortionists while a Supreme Court nomination yet hangs in the balance.


3 posted on 10/24/2005 10:24:17 PM PDT by sourcery (Givernment: The way the average voter spells "government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

All the court did is essentially let the lower court ruling stand. Even if the case was taken up, it would have resulted in the same outcome 5-4 (assuming Roberts would side with the state position).


4 posted on 10/24/2005 10:26:22 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

you may have a good point.


5 posted on 10/24/2005 10:26:44 PM PDT by Coleus ("Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

The chief justice isn't God. He can only do so much.


6 posted on 10/24/2005 10:28:40 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
personally, I'm best described as neutral--shocking, I know

Uh Oh. Dont say that on here.

7 posted on 10/24/2005 10:29:37 PM PDT by curtisgardner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
who knows, maybe one of the moderates would have sided with the state since the state law allows abortions if it will hurt the mother. In this case it didn't seem that way. More of a convenience reason.

seems the ACLU argued on the right to choose and not based on Missouri law limiting abortions to only those women who were ill.

8 posted on 10/24/2005 10:31:09 PM PDT by Coleus ("Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

States rights trumped again.


9 posted on 10/24/2005 10:32:22 PM PDT by gpapa (Boost FR Traffic! Make FR your home page!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
They cited Missouri's laws that they said discourage abortions and encourage childbirth. They said any time an inmate is transported outside of a prison it raises possible security issues.

They argued a possible security and transportation issues for their reason ???

10 posted on 10/24/2005 10:33:27 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

It's a state's right's issue. Roberts voted correctly.


11 posted on 10/24/2005 10:33:41 PM PDT by mrexitement
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

This case was about taxpayer money being used to pay the transportation/security cost to take this inmate to a clinic to get an abortion.

Missouri law states no taxpayer money can be used for someone to get an abortion ( this includes transportation and security costs ).

The "procedure" ( killing of the baby ) will be paid for by this inmate ( with a loan from friends and relatives ) but she said she couldn`t pay the transportaion cost. So this lawasuit was filed thanks to the ACLU.

If the courts are going to force the state to give her a ride and security, I say bill her and let her work the transportation cost off in prison.


12 posted on 10/24/2005 10:33:43 PM PDT by Peace will be here soon ((Liberal definition of looting: "Self-help Humanitarian Aid."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
He could shown some leadership skills and sway his other jurists to hear the case since Missouri law allows abortions ONLY for sick women. The ACLU argued on the grounds of CHOICE, the woman was fine. They could have sided using the 10th amendment as an argument and let the state do what the people of Missouri wanted.

The scotus could also have decided the case base on the 5th and 14th amendments granting us citizens a right to life and equal protection under the law.
13 posted on 10/24/2005 10:34:23 PM PDT by Coleus ("Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
"(Chief Justice John Roberts kills first baby?)"

I'm not in the least surprised. When asked by the liberal Senators if his religion, (Catholic Christian) would interfere with his judicial decisions, Roberts soothed their souls when he responded that he wouldn't be taking his faith to work with him.

14 posted on 10/24/2005 10:35:55 PM PDT by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" -Pope Urban II, 1097AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peace will be here soon
"If the courts are going to force the state to give her a ride and security, I say bill her and let her work the transportation cost off in prison."

Unfortuantely, we're all being 'billed' for abortion, and the price is getting higher every day.

15 posted on 10/24/2005 10:38:04 PM PDT by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" -Pope Urban II, 1097AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
or maybe it's poor leadership skills.

Since there was no opinion, we don't know anything at all. Other than the high court did not find a worthwhile constitutional issue with the prior decision. I don't know the specifics of the case, but I don't see that this case shows much of anything at all.

16 posted on 10/24/2005 10:38:14 PM PDT by Ramius (Buy blades for war fighters: freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net --> 900 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Who knows That is the operative phrase. The comment in the headline is very provocative, and speculative. We simply don't know the behind-the-scenes facts to make a judgement on how Roberts would have ruled on this or other abortion issues. Also, to take the case on and hear arguments, don't a majority need to agree to take the case?
17 posted on 10/24/2005 10:39:22 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mrexitement
It's a state's rights issue. Roberts voted correctly. >>

He did? The state and the people of Missouri were against the abortion and now this woman will be having one, how did the state win and Robert's rule correctly?

The federal judge in the lower court ruled against the state and the people of the state; Roberts let the federal court order stand.
18 posted on 10/24/2005 10:39:37 PM PDT by Coleus ("Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

See... there's the problem... Supreme Court cases are about the Constitution, and darn little else.


19 posted on 10/24/2005 10:40:58 PM PDT by Ramius (Buy blades for war fighters: freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net --> 900 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Exactly. Especially to say that this is Roberts' first baby kill is simply wrong.

No reason to believe that the lower court ruling would have been overturned at least 5-4 even if the case were heard by the SCOTUS.


20 posted on 10/24/2005 10:41:52 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
I don't know the specifics of the case, but I don't see that this case shows much of anything at all. >>

the state of Missouri and the people of Missouri didn't want the abortion to take place since the heatlh of the mother was not an issue. The ACLU argued based on the premise of "choice". A lower federal court ruled for the ACLU and the abortion. Roberts and his court ignored the 10th amendment and allowed the baby to be killed against the wishes of the state. The SCOUTS also could have used the 5th and 14th amendment guaranteeing a right to life and equal protection under the law.
21 posted on 10/24/2005 10:43:23 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mrexitement
It's a state's right's issue. Roberts voted correctly.

The state of Missouri did prevent this inmate for having an abortion. It's was a Federal judge that overturned the state's decision.

22 posted on 10/24/2005 10:43:47 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

While the Miers mess plays out, it's important for us to remember we don't really know how even Roberts is going to turn out on the court. The Bushbots are out in force patting their God on the back for the Roberts nomination, but I still remember that C-SPAN moment in the confirmation hearing when Roberts distanced himself from the "originalist" label often used to describe Scalia and Thomas.

Thanks to Bush's stealth picks, we have simultaneous guessing/waiting games going on right now - one with Miers and one with Roberts.


23 posted on 10/24/2005 10:44:04 PM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery; Coleus

It's sad to think a Surpreme Court chief justice would play politics like that. You'd hope the awe of the office would last at least one month, before complete cynicism set in.


24 posted on 10/24/2005 10:44:38 PM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
He could shown some leadership skills and sway his other jurists to hear the case since Missouri law allows abortions ONLY for sick women.

Have you considered that Roberts might be pro-Roe? That would consistent with the general pattern of Republican stealth nominees.

25 posted on 10/24/2005 10:45:21 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Coleus said: "who knows, maybe one of the moderates would have sided with the state since the state law allows abortions if it will hurt the mother."

You seem to be suggesting that one of the pro-abortion justices would have decided that "the right to an abortion" contains an exception having to do with the health of an imprisoned mother. Why do you think that they would do that?

I can easily believe that a justice who supports abortion would find that forcing an imprisoned mother to give birth would constitute "cruel and unusual punishment".

There is no way that Roberts will play a role in reversing Roe v. Wade until the pro-life justices outnumber the pro-death justices.

26 posted on 10/24/2005 10:48:46 PM PDT by William Tell (Put the RKBA on the California Constitution - Volunteer through rkba.members.sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

Guys, we have absolutely now idea what Roberts did on this issue. It would be ridiculous to guess. When parental notification and partial birth abortion come before the court, then we will know something. Until then, lets take a deep breath and work to get Miers withdrawn.


27 posted on 10/24/2005 10:48:51 PM PDT by Mike10542
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mrexitement

It is a states' rights issue. Missouri law prohibits using taxpayer money to pay for abortions. In this case the cost of transportation will be paid for with state funds.


28 posted on 10/24/2005 10:53:15 PM PDT by gpapa (Boost FR Traffic! Make FR your home page!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
Why do you think that they would do that? >>

this is more of a state's rights and 10th amendment issue than anything else. The state banned abortion in prisons with one exception-- the health of the mother, in this case the mother was fine and the ACLU argued on the right to choose rather than Missouri law.
29 posted on 10/24/2005 10:53:49 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Even if there is some infringement of the prisoner's constitutional rights to choose an abortion,...

A person in prison obviously doesn't have the same rights as a law-abiding citizen. The whole idea of locking them up is that society doesn't trust them to make decisions that will harm other people. Certainly, abortion is a harmful decision.

Allowing this woman to get an abortion because it's "her right" is inconsistent with the whole idea of imprisonment. And doesn't this open the door for all convicted felons to vote from behind bars? I mean it's their constitutional right, isn't it?

30 posted on 10/24/2005 10:54:02 PM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

The issue in this case was not abortion.


31 posted on 10/24/2005 10:54:55 PM PDT by Ramius (Buy blades for war fighters: freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net --> 900 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
Sorry for the double ping, the mods took away the comments I made in parenthesis in the title:
 
Did Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, kill his first baby???
 

32 posted on 10/24/2005 10:58:36 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mrexitement
It's a state's right's issue. Roberts voted correctly.

You gotta be kidding me!!! That's your interpretation of this ruling? Roberts voted in favor of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM by upholding a lower federal courts ruling to overturn the state of Missouri's constitutional law regarding state funding for abortion. How in the heck is Roberts decision a ruling in favor of the state's rights?

You're right, it is a state's rights issue, and Roberts blew it in the first test of his constitutional adherence. The state of Missouri had passed a law which mandated that state funds were not to be used for purposes of committing abortions. Naturally the ACLU sued, the case went to a federal appellate judge (who refused to allow the case to be heard before the entire Appeals court) and declared that the state of Missouri was obligated to pay for the woman's abortion and commence with the abortion without delay. Judge Clarence Thomas allowed for a temporary stay of the order, but then lifted the temporary stay. The decision was appealed to the the Supreme Court, and in the first test of Roberts "constitutional restraint" and not legislating from the bench..... he legislated from the bench, instead of ruling that Missouri had the right to pass and enforce its own laws.

I have believed from day 1 that Roberts is a stealth candidate and will break left more often than not in the next 30-40 years. Roe vs Wade (along with ruling in favor of gay marriage) will flourish under John Robert's court.

33 posted on 10/24/2005 11:00:47 PM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mike10542
Until then, lets take a deep breath and work to get Miers withdrawn.

You're right, we can't do anything about Roberts now. But we can do plenty about Miers.

At least with Roberts, strict constructionists can pin their hopes on his famous french fry case. With Miers, we don't even have a french fry to look to with optimism.

Bush is so afraid of a paper trail, it appears people like Judge Luttig, Ted Olson and Janice Rogers Brown are overqualified and too proud of their conservative beliefs for Bush to ever seriously consider them for the nation's highest court. So, instead, he nominated the Dallas chapter president of the G.W.B. fan club. She must be rejected. We must at least make Bush reconsider.

34 posted on 10/24/2005 11:03:04 PM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: billclintonwillrotinhell

You got that right! We gotta fight Bush's decision to nominate and bring to the Supreme Court his stealth candidate #2.


35 posted on 10/24/2005 11:04:55 PM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
The issue in this case was not abortion. >>

right, and that's why the Robert's court was very wrong. The state of Missouri and the people of Missouri passed a law banning abortions for prisoners except in the case of harming the mothers health. In this case the mother was fine and the ACLU argued for choice.

the Missouri courts sided with the prison system and the letter of Missouri law

the case then went to a lower federal court and they decided for the ACLU and the mother to have the abortion of convenience.

then it went to the SCOTUS where Robert's showed a lack of leadership where the refused to hear this case

Based on the 10th amendment.

Roberts is surely no conservative based on this case.

and what happened to the right to life in the 5th and 14th amendments and equal protection under the law in the 14th amendment. Roberts is a big disappointment.

36 posted on 10/24/2005 11:06:29 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Did Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, kill his first baby???

---

Sadly, I think so. Maybe he did not directly - but he allowed it to happen.


37 posted on 10/24/2005 11:09:54 PM PDT by BoBToMatoE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Beats me... but the fifth amendment also requires equal protection under the law. As long as the law in a state allows abortion, it must not deny that precedure to someone without due process.

States rights... right back atcha...

Look... I despise abortion as much as you or the next person here... but it's a pretty big stretch to think that this case defines Chief Justice Roberts on the whole of the issue of abortion. It just doesn't. The abortion issue is at best peripheral to the case. I'd advise waiting for a better and more clear case before you hyperventilate.


38 posted on 10/24/2005 11:16:34 PM PDT by Ramius (Buy blades for war fighters: freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net --> 900 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mike10542

Guys, we have absolutely now idea what Roberts did on this issue. It would be ridiculous to guess. When parental notification and partial birth abortion come before the court, then we will know something. Until then, lets take a deep breath and work to get Miers withdrawn.

Partial birth abortion case is just after Thanksgiving. Getting Miers withdrawn means OConnor will be deciding vote. We know Miers is against abortion, we know OConner supports it. Gee thanks guys. Thanks for all your hard work.


39 posted on 10/24/2005 11:24:54 PM PDT by HelloooClareece (Anagram of New York Times....... Monkeys Write. (I Still have a water bucket))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All

This thread has me nervous.

But I would like to hear Chief Justice Roberts' side of it.


40 posted on 10/24/2005 11:39:04 PM PDT by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

To all of the fear mongerers re: Roberts. Thomas had a stay. The Supremes did a head count (Roberts' responsibility as CJ). Since there wasn't at least 4 justices willing to hear the case, the stay was lifted and the Supremes decided not to hear the case. This does NOT mean that Roberts is pro-abort. It means that there wasn't 4 votes to hear it.


41 posted on 10/24/2005 11:55:01 PM PDT by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HelloooClareece
Getting Miers withdrawn means OConnor will be deciding vote. We know Miers is against abortion, we know OConner supports it. Gee thanks guys. Thanks for all your hard work.

Getting Miers withdrawn and replaced by an originalist with a proven track record will give us at least three originalists on the court that can be counted on. Having Miers appointed leaves with only two we can be sure to depend on and along with a maybe.

It's thanks to people like you that Republicans can continue to get away with appoint stealth candidates that almost always end up being liberal. Grow a brain.

42 posted on 10/25/2005 12:14:26 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
If Roberts ends up not being ever bit the originalist Rehnquist was, one would hope conservatives would never, ever accept another stealth nominee from a Republican President again, especially with 55 seats in the senate.

This red flag is even more of a reason that the that Miers nomination must be withdrawn and a nominee with a proven conservative record replace it.

If Miers ends up on the court, there is a real possibility that Supreme Court move to the left thanks to Bush.

43 posted on 10/25/2005 12:17:32 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

They won't have a choice. There is a presidence now, that a conservative is not allowed on the court. Stealth nominee is all that republicans can get now.


44 posted on 10/25/2005 12:30:37 AM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Fetus at 17 weeks


45 posted on 10/25/2005 12:42:12 AM PDT by md2576 (Don't be such a Shehan Hugger!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Coleus said: "...this is more of a state's rights and 10th amendment issue than anything else. "

Fine. Then if Roberts and others had voted to hear the case, I would expect a 5-4 decision ruling that states do not have the power to deny abortions to inmates.

This would make it mandatory for all federal judges to rule that way until such time as Roe v. Wade is overturned. Roberts may have saved lives by preventing a precedent that might bind lower courts nationwide such that they would be unable to support some other state's pro-life policies.

As it stands now, there are many jurisdictions where a law barring abortions for inmates might be upheld.

46 posted on 10/25/2005 12:56:25 AM PDT by William Tell (Put the RKBA on the California Constitution - Volunteer through rkba.members.sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: billclintonwillrotinhell
billclintonwillrotinhell said: Allowing this woman to get an abortion because it's "her right" is inconsistent with the whole idea of imprisonment.

You may be on to something here.

The state of Missouri has passed a law which denies a recognized "right" to a prisoner by refusing to pay for its exercise.

It's been pointed out that prisoners cannot vote. That is because loss of the right to vote is spelled out in the criminal laws of the state as part of the punishment for a crime. It is not just a law which prohibits the spending of state funds to permit voting by inmates.

The legislators in Missouri just need to change their laws, making a denial of abortions part of the punishment, and it might survive a US Supreme Court test. Due to the prohibition against ex-post-facto laws, it would not apply to an inmate for convictions which preceded passage of the law, so this baby is still going to be a casualty of the abortion war.

47 posted on 10/25/2005 1:06:57 AM PDT by William Tell (Put the RKBA on the California Constitution - Volunteer through rkba.members.sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

We will never know. This baby could have changed the world for the better. Poor little kid. But we know where he/she is right now - a MUCH BETTER PLACE.


48 posted on 10/25/2005 5:59:28 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy (Never forget Terri Schindler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

It's very disappointing, but we don't know where Roberts stood on it.

If he knew that the court would have voted 5-4 in favor of abortion, then he was right to refuse to intervene, because the baby would die in any case but this way there is no actual decision that will need to be reversed in the future, and no actual precedent if the same situation arises again.


49 posted on 10/25/2005 8:28:10 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

You said: See... there's the problem... Supreme Court cases are about the Constitution, and darn little else.
***
Whoa!! The Supreme Court decides more than constitutional questions, including a number of questions of federal law and procedure, which have no necessary connection with the constitution. That is why someone with business experience, perhaps Miers, perhaps not, belongs on the Court.


50 posted on 10/25/2005 8:32:41 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson