Posted on 04/21/2007 10:25:13 AM PDT by wagglebee
Judicial nominations just took front and center for presidential nominees and the 2008 primaries.
The magnitude of who gets to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court is supremely illustrated by the Court’s ruling today upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion (PBA). The newest justice, Samuel A. Alito, joined the majority of the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart.
Put simply, it’s Sam v. Sandra. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor voted with the Court majority in 2000 when it struck down Nebraska’s ban on PBA in Stenberg v. Carhart, based on the law’s failure to include a health exception and its definition of PBA. Alito took O’Connor’s seat on February 1, 2006.
Chief Justice John Roberts also voted with the majority. Roberts’ vote, however, duplicated the vote in 2000 by then Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vote, while crucial, was expected to be consistent with his vote to uphold the ban in 2000.
The gruesome and inhumane PBA procedure requires partially removing the baby intact from a woman’s uterus until all that remains inside the woman is the baby’s head. The abortionist stabs surgical scissors into the back of the baby’s skull, inserts a tube to suck out the brains, and then crushes or cuts the skull to complete the abortion.
Congress passed a PBA ban twice while Bill Clinton was president but he vetoed it each time. President George W. Bush signed the ban into law in 2003, as he promised to do if elected.
Kennedy wrote for the majority to reverse a unanimous ruling on July 8, 2005, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court also reversed the holding in a companion case, Gonzales, Attorney General v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Kennedy wrote: “Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception.”
The Court also held that, “The Act is open to a proper as-applied challenge in a discrete case. … No as-applied challenge need be brought if the prohibition in the Act threatens a woman’s life because the Act already contains a life exception.”
Kennedy acknowledged that “both sides have medical support for their positions” on whether a health exception is medically necessary. Nonetheless, the majority held that “legislative options must be especially broad”:
The conclusion that the Act does not impose an undue burden is supported by other considerations. Alternatives are available to the prohibited procedure. As we have noted, the Act does not proscribe D&E [dilation and evacuation]. … In addition the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus.” … If the intact D&E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the majority but wrote a separate concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. Thomas explained his reason:
I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. … I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, … has no basis in the Constitution. … I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it.
“Today’s decision is alarming,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. She said the ruling “refuses to take ... seriously” previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion, and that the decision “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”
Today’s decision represents a major achievement for pro-lifers, because it stems the tide of pro-abortion rulings. This progress was made possible only because pro-lifers have recently compelled presidents to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. The hard truth remains, however, that abortion, even late term abortion, is still legal. Until five members of the Supreme Court agree that the Constitution does not include an unfettered right to lethally inject an unborn child and cut it into pieces with a curette blade (D&E), or turn it into human pulp via vacuum aspiration, abortion will continue.
All the more reason for us to elect a REAL conservative next year.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
.
President Bush appointed two of the finest Justices to the Supreme Court, ever. For that, and many other things, every American should thank our President. George W. Bush makes the GOP proud, and our nation is better because he is the President.
Fred Thompson was asked by President Bush to assist in the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts. FDT did a fantastic job. If we want future nominations to the Supreme Court of the same quality and caliber as Justice Alito and Chief Justice Robers, we should elect Fred Thompson to serve as the next President of the United States.
Thompson 2008!
My first choice would be Duncan Hunter, but I am realistic enough to realize that he is a real long shot. That being said, I would be delighted to see Fred Thompson elected and plan to fully support his campaign.
Roberts counts, too. He and Alito are fairly young, and if Bush hadn’t done the right thing we could have had another Souter or another Sandra Day O’Connor on the court.
President Bush has been disappointing in many ways, especially for the past couple of years, but he did the right thing on judges.
And, much as I despise him, Specter did his job, too.
The Dims are now riding high, but let us pray that we get one more shot at a SCOTUS appointment.
How about Janice Rogers Brown? Let the Dims start badmouthing an impressive black woman with plenty of judicial experience, and see where it gets them.
I completely agree with what you said about Roberts and Alito. Although Roberts is no more conservative than Rehnquist, their youth puts them in a position to lead the court for several decades.
GWB has not been the disappointment that his father was, but he certainly isn’t what he appeared to be in 2000.
I just want to point out that the first President Bush appointed Empty Souter, who voted with the minority. Remember, he was supposed to be the ‘stealth’ conservative?
What a joke.
Balderdash! The FIVE Catholics on the Court were instructed how to vote on their “Secret ‘Papal Instruction’ Rings!” Two thousand rosaries for penance was too much to bear...
Didn’t you hear Rosie complain about that!??
/sarcasm
;-o)
How dare Justice Thomas actually interpret the Constitution literally! Doesn't he know that the Constitution is a "living document" and it's meaning changes with time?/sarc
Amen to that. A President Clinton would be able to replace the older liberals with new liberals. That would not be good.
The good news is..... Former President Bush appointed Clarence Thomas in 1991.
God Bless Justice Thomas,long may he live.
Well, we nearly had a disaster with Harriet Miers, thankfully Bush listened to conservatives on that one.
You’re right.
If either John Paul Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire, get ready for the Democrats to obstruct whoever Bush would nominate. Now that they have a Senate majority, they will flex their political muscles on the next appointee, if Bush gets another nomination before he leaves office.
This is an op ed from the East Valley Tribune (Mesa, AZ, Aug 2005)
Overturn Roe v. Wade?
by John Semmens
Now that John Roberts has been nominated to the Supreme Court, partisans on both the left and right are demanding to know where he stands on the issue of abortion. Would he vote to uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that overturned state laws restricting abortions?
Under a properly functioning judiciary, it is improper for judges to be asked how they will rule on a case prior to hearing the evidence specifically pertaining to that case. The idea is that a judge is to weigh this evidence in order to render a just verdict.
Wanting to know how someone will vote prior to taking office is appropriate when that office is one designated as part of the lawmaking portion of government. We want to know what kind of new laws candidates for the legislature might enact. We want to know what kind of laws candidates for the presidency might ask the legislature to pass and that he would sign.
That advance information on policy positions is being sought from a prospective new member of the Supreme Court is an indication that the courts have been diverted from their intended function of rendering justice according to existing law to an unconstitutional role of making law.
The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision is representative of a court diverted into a lawmaking role. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion that struck down a Texas law limiting abortions to cases where the life of the mother was endangered. The grounds cited were that “the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision.”
Some critics of the Roe v. Wade decision have assailed Blackmun’s assertion that there is a Constitutionally protected right to privacy. Indeed, the word “privacy” does not appear in the Constitution. The word “private” does appear, but only in conjunction with the word property in the Fifth Amendment.
This line of criticism misconstrues the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution is a document designed to limit government. The absence of an explicit mention of a right to privacy in the document should not be interpreted to mean people do not possess such a right. To do so implies that the Constitution itself is a grant of privileges from the government to the people and that any privilege not expressly granted is not protected from government encroachment.
The Founders anticipated this possible misunderstanding and inserted the Ninth Amendment. This amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Quite simply, the right to privacy is one of those retained rights.
Does this then mean that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided? I think not. The issue with abortion is not invasion of privacy by the government. The issue is harm to another person. Namely, abortion is the taking of another person’s life. That a person intent on committing such a deed would prefer to do so in private is understandable.
The government, however, has an obligation to protect an individual’s life. Laws against abortion are a means of fulfilling this fundamental obligation. The Roe v. Wade decision impedes state governments from carrying out this obligation.
A just and humane government is incompatible with the carnage unleashed by this 1973 Supreme Court decision. Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned. Maybe John Roberts can play a role in achieving this.
LOL! Yep, I got mine at confirmation from the bishop himself!
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.