Posted on 03/25/2008 10:35:20 AM PDT by radar101
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in an abortion case on Monday.
The issue at the center of the case was whether deputies should be required to transport female jail inmates for elective abortions.
The high court upheld an Arizona Court ruling that said refusing the transport violates the inmates' constitutional rights.
Maybe some cartoonist out there can equate Supreme Court Justices to the Chinese vs. Tibetans
According USSC justices, there is no Constitutional right to abortion.
So which right is being violated?
What a shame that the SCOTUS couldn't see the merits of your case.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the best damned thing to ever happen to Maricopa County, if not the entire United States of America. Unlike the liberal RINOs running things at the top, he's actually enforcing our nation's immigration laws and doing his damnedest to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens and the unborn.
Don't like it? Fine by us. Stay the hell out of Arizona, screwhead.
For refusing to endanger his inmates with medically unnecessary surgical procedures at taxpayer expense?
He has some good policies related to prisoners working and handling illegal immigrants, but he is a screwball that has cost his county a lot of money over the years.
Shoddy journalism. The article claims the court “ruled” against Arpaio. The court did no such thing. It simply denied cert.
I agree. He actually enforces the law. The only people who object to him are those who don't want our laws enforced.
THANK YOU!
Don't like it? Fine by us. Stay the hell out of Arizona, screwhead. Needed saying, but I was too ticked.
maddie
How can abortion be a constitutional right?
Sheriff Joe is the most popular politician in Arizona because he’s a law and order sheriff who doesn’t believe in wasting taxpayer money.
He’s a good man, a good Catholic, does incredible charitable work—and he drives the left bonkers. :0)
Sheriff Joe is my sheriff. Next to my grandfather who also wore the badge with honor and distinction, Joe is my favorite lawman.
Not the best case to use as an abortion test case.
-they are dissing your Joe!
“I agree. He actually enforces the law. The only people who object to him are those who don’t want our laws enforced.”
The problem in this case is that AZ law gives the right to the abortion.
The right to do something doens’t imply the obligation of others to provide it, though I realize this has been decided otherwise a number of times.
He wasn’t saying they didn’t have a right to an abortion per se, just that he wasn’t obligated to spend law enforcemnt man hours getting them to the facility to get one.
Arpaio has a history of ignoring AZ state law as he sees fit.
> For refusing to endanger his inmates with medically unnecessary surgical procedures at taxpayer expense?
There is *one* upside to the ruling: it allows crims who desperately want to voluntarily remove their DNA from the gene pool a means of doing so, while ensuring that they get what’s coming to them in this life as well as the next.
In 15 year’s time this will roughly translate to one less crim for the good Sheriff to have to warehouse for every crim who chose to murder their unborn.
If abortion must be, let it be thus. Which child deserves to be brought up to be a crim? And who can say that the good Sheriff didn’t fight tooth-and-nail for the unborn’s soul? And who can deny where culpability lies?
‘Tis a grim form of the calculus, and an ugly one.
“The problem in this case is that AZ law gives the right to the abortion.”
What “AZ law” would this be? You might want to look here:
Overall, I'd say it's been a net savings, considering that those taxpayer funds won't be blown in perpetuity to make prisoners comfy and assure an easy life for illegal invaders...thanks entirely to Sheriff Joe's efforts.
Maybe there is a constitutional right to be transported wherever you want? Actually, I thought the whole idea behind prison was that you’re stuck there for a certain amount of time.
Spoken like a true Nevadan. How about quoting some Arizona legal code that you claim Joe's "ignoring"?
And while you're at it, how about you leave Arizona to the Arizonans.
Legal code citation, please.
It's not. It was invented through judicial activists legislating from the bench.
Many thanks for posting that link. That really cinches the matter.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
A crass and ridiculous statement. People are not born criminals, they learn the bad behavior. Adopt the child into a loving family and a child has a good shot at being a great person.
My guess is AZ law gives the prisoner the right to get an abortion.
I expected such a vacuous response from a pro-illegal, pro-abortion liberal.
I'd like to make him MY president!
I was going by what the AZ court ruled on it. I’m sure that is what the USSC was looking at too.
This case is about TRANSPORTING them at the county’s expense. The SC holds that Arpaio denying them transportation (for this ‘procedure’) is wrong.
“If abortion must be”
That is a premise I will *never* accept.
Even if, as you argue, some good comes of it, it is an absolute moral evil.
I didn't expect an Arizonan to be able to spell 'vacuous'.
This is a prisoner custody issue all the way down, and something happen he didn't like he could level his streetsweeper on the lot of 'em.
I’m pretty sure they get transported to other appointments, emergency surgery for instance. The Sheriff chose to deny selectively. Even all of us who are pro-life must agree with the SC that it is not up to Sheriff Arpaio to decide when to permit (or deny) transportation.
All disagreement aside, that was funny.
Good for you. I’ve always liked the Sheriff and wish we had more of his calibre.
“...refusing the transport violates the inmates’ constitutional rights...”
Uh...for instance?
WHICH “Constitutional right” might that be?
Chapter and Verse PLEASE?!?!?!
I'd like to make him MY president!
Absolutely agreed. It's men like Joe, not the Washington quislings, who made this nation great in the first place.
Sheriff Joe has also saved his county a lot of money over the years with his no frills fence and tents prison.
I'd be happy for a chance to vote for Sheriff Joe.
But not other elective surgery, I'll bet. Therefore his refusal is not inconsistent.
He has a moral and a legal obligation to care for the well being of those in his custody (technically that's what "custody" means), and that would even extend beyond "emergency" medical attention and include care for serious chronic conditions, but I can't see where that would extend to providing taxpayer funded transportation for elective procedures.
We need a lot more “screwballs” like Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A lot more.
I am sorry if I offended you. You write:
> A crass and ridiculous statement. People are not born criminals, they learn the bad behavior.
I’m of two minds on that, depending upon whether I am looking at the question as a matter of morals and ethics, or as a matter of established animal husbandry. If as a matter of morals and ethics, I would naturally agree with you.
In fact, that is where I prefer to spend most of my time and energy on this issue: I’d like to think that mankind has a higher purpose above that of mere animals.
If however I look at it as a matter of established animal husbandry, many centuries of established practise across many species and breeds have proven that yes indeed, traits are inherited and few happen by accident.
I can see no good reason why human beings would operate differently to other animals, as this holds true with nearly every living thing on earth in the plant and animal kingdoms. DNA is inherited and it determines traits, as does conditioning.
Taken to an extreme, Eugenics is a result of this viewpoint. It is not a philosophy I subscribe to. Not for scientific reasons, but for moral and ethical reasons.
> Adopt the child into a loving family and a child has a good shot at being a great person.
My family has two adopted members, both of whom are great people. Their parents did not want them, mine did. So what you say there is absolutely true.
But these women in this story do not want to adopt. Instead they want to commit the selfish sin of abortion. And the courts have colluded to allow this to happen, apparently as a matter of right.
Well, fine — that is a separate battle that too must be fought. As matters stand now, culpability for the decision to abort rests where it properly should: with the parent and with the courts.
Who would want to be raised by a mother who would have preferred that you were never born? Or worse, would kill to make sure you didn’t achieve birth? And even worse, who would deny others the chance of raising you?
What kind of upbringing could that child ever expect? Both nature and nurture would be working against such a child.
Short of forcing the woman to carry the child full-term and give birth, and then forcibly removing that child from the woman and allocating it to another, there are very few ways this situation can possibly end happily.
And that leaves us with the only benefit in the whole sorry mess, and that is the genetic one.
It isn’t a happy benefit, and it isn’t something that our Society can be proud of. Neither should it be sold as a feature of our Humanity. But if there is an upside to the situation, that is it plain and simple.
> Even if, as you argue, some good comes of it, it is an absolute moral evil.
I completely agree.
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.