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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Ruling Sets Up Attack on Roe v. Wade
LifeNews.com ^ | January 25, 2010 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 01/25/2010 9:49:57 AM PST by julieee

Supreme Court Ruling Sets Up Attack on Roe v. Wade

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court observers are focusing on an aspect of last Thursday's decision to overturn a national campaign finance reform law that shows the high court could establish a legal basis for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions.

http://www.LifeNews.com/nat5921.html

(Excerpt) Read more at LifeNews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: roevwade; supremecourt

1 posted on 01/25/2010 9:49:57 AM PST by julieee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: julieee
When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right," he added, saying “stare decisis is not an end in itself.”

Roberts. The best decision President Bush ever made.

2 posted on 01/25/2010 9:53:13 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

Now that would be the greatest thing ever. This atrosity has done more damage to our country than any Democrat could hope for. Dear God I pray they can once and for all do away with this nutty procedure. This is why we MUST have ONLY conservatives in the Senate so that we can be assured conservatives on the court. Yes Reagan f’ed up on his picks but he had a Democratic Senate and RINOs. 2010 we are going to ditch the Democrats but hopefully don’t decided to gain RINOs. Brown was the only one that should be accepted. NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!! This has seriously made my day!!!


3 posted on 01/25/2010 9:54:09 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
“At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’… nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ … especially in constitutional cases," he wrote. “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”

How on earth can he say minimum wage laws are constitutional?

4 posted on 01/25/2010 9:55:31 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Roberts. The best decision President Bush ever made.

Which one was the Harriet Miers fiasco attached to? Was that Roberts or Alito?

5 posted on 01/25/2010 9:56:43 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: julieee
Chief Justice Roberts also said precedent could be reversed if its “rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence in related areas of law, and when the precedent’s underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new and different justifications to shore up the original mistake.”

Indeed. The (very weak) rationale for Roe vs Wade was the idea that the bill of rights implied a right to privacy that prevented the states from passing laws dealing with the private matter of abortion.

However, today the public is being asked to help fund abortion...meaning that the "privacy" of the issue is out the window.

6 posted on 01/25/2010 9:56:55 AM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
How on earth can he say minimum wage laws are constitutional?

Federal or State? I can see how state minimum wage laws could be constitutional, but I have more trouble seeing how federal ones could be.

7 posted on 01/25/2010 9:59:12 AM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Roberts. The best decision President Bush ever made.

Yes. It's hard to believe the same guy picked Harriet Miers.

8 posted on 01/25/2010 9:59:19 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Alito.


9 posted on 01/25/2010 10:00:19 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: julieee

What ever the intent of this article, it’s tone is likely to energize the Pro-Abortion People. Instead of celebrating the affirmation of freedom of speech, the article sees the decision in much the same way the left saw McCain-Feingold act. I don’t begrudge them being Pro-Life, it just seems to cheapen the wondrous freedom of your group or company being able to press for your candidate without censorship.


10 posted on 01/25/2010 10:01:36 AM PST by Steamburg ( Your wallet speaks the only language most politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Harriet Miers was tossed and Alito was nominated in her place.

Right now it looks like Alito and Roberts represent the two best decisions that President Bush ever made, and I for one am inclined to speak kindly of him because of them.


11 posted on 01/25/2010 10:05:59 AM PST by Dr. North
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

I had a “W” sticker on my door and took it down the day that Harriet Miers was nominated.

Fortunately, that situation was redeemed via Alito and Roberts.


12 posted on 01/25/2010 10:07:41 AM PST by Dr. North
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
I can see how state minimum wage laws could be constitutional..

Well if they would follow Lochner, even the state laws would be unconstitutional. Its unfortunate, that the freedom to contract is not given the "strict scrutiny" other so-called "rights" are given in the current law.

13 posted on 01/25/2010 10:11:02 AM PST by Fast Ed97 (Is it bad when you start to miss the Clinton years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Huck
... minimum wage laws are constitutional

If this were a politician speaking then you would be right to infer that, but this is a Supreme Court judge.

He only said that "if X then Not Y". It would be unwise to read implication of Y from his statement. IMHO he's gently bringing along the other Supremes, herding them like cats, giving them the arguments that allow them to admit the truth - that Stare Decisis is not immutable.

I could be wrong of course. But I think Roberts wins one battle at a time.

14 posted on 01/25/2010 10:15:57 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

+ Alito


15 posted on 01/25/2010 10:17:24 AM PST by free1977free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: julieee
The Roberts Court said stare decisis is not always sacrosanct. So if the Court wanted to revisit Roe it could. But I suspect the political firestorm would be far more intense than the battle over campaign finance reform.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

16 posted on 01/25/2010 10:17:34 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
“We are deeply concerned. ... Yesterday’s decision shows the court will reach out to take an opportunity to wholesale reverse a precedent the hard right has never liked," she added.

dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding. SCOTUS in Central Green Co v. United States 1935

17 posted on 01/25/2010 10:18:04 AM PST by gitmo (FR vs DU: n4mage vs DUmage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Just keep praying.


18 posted on 01/25/2010 10:24:37 AM PST by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fast Ed97
Well if they would follow Lochner, even the state laws would be unconstitutional. Its unfortunate, that the freedom to contract is not given the "strict scrutiny" other so-called "rights" are given in the current law.

I'm not familiar with Lochner, but you seem to be implying that the argument used was stretching the Constitution.

While I think minimum wage laws are bad for the economy, I would not favor putting words in the mouths of the framers in order to get rid of them. We should amend such laws only in the prescribed legislative ways. Thus I'm inclined to think that the state minimum wage laws should not be overturned by a federal court. However, I am not entrenched in this view as I am no expert on law.

19 posted on 01/25/2010 10:25:11 AM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: julieee

“Supreme Court observers are focusing on an aspect of last Thursday’s decision to overturn a national campaign finance reform law that shows the high court could establish a legal basis for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions.”

Why? Because it overturned a previous decision? As if we didn’t already know that was possible. Libs, of course, have been lately pretending they didn’t know, but they’re lying.


20 posted on 01/25/2010 10:27:51 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee

“Supreme Court observers are focusing on an aspect of last Thursday’s decision to overturn a national campaign finance reform law that shows the high court could establish a legal basis for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions.”

Why? Because it overturned a previous decision? As if we didn’t already know that was possible. Libs, of course, have been lately pretending they didn’t know, but they’re lying.


21 posted on 01/25/2010 10:28:33 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

“While I think minimum wage laws are bad for the economy, I would not favor putting words in the mouths of the framers in order to get rid of them.”

One wouldn’t need to put words into their mouths to strike them down. The way the Constitution works is if there is no power granted to the federal government, then the federal government has no power. We don’t have to pretend there is a right to contract. All we have to do is point out, honestly, that the Constitution doesn’t mention regulation of wages.

Nothing, so far as I can see, gives the feds the power to set a minimum wage. Except the all-powerful Interstate Commerce excuse. And as we all know, that applies to everything under the sun. So I guess you win, libs. No one on our side has successfully argued against your interpretation of that clause for a century.


22 posted on 01/25/2010 10:34:37 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“The Roberts Court said stare decisis is not always sacrosanct.”

Angry Lib: Which is yet another lie from the hard right, who would have us barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen if barefootedness and pregnancy ever came before the court. What have they been drinking, anyway? It’s not as if Brown vs. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, or anything.


23 posted on 01/25/2010 10:37:27 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

“We don’t have to pretend there is a right to contract”

Actually, there IS a right to contract. It’s called the Contract Clause (Article 1, section 10). Though it is ostensibly about preventing government from retroactively altering contracts. Which wouldn’t apply to the issue at hand, except insofar as those who already had agreed to a wage below the new minimum shouldn’t be automatically bumped up. This issue never comes up, of course, since the sort of contracts between minimum wage employees and their employers are not the kind that anyone bothers enforcing.


24 posted on 01/25/2010 10:45:20 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
One wouldn’t need to put words into their mouths to strike them down.

The discussion at the point you jumped in was only in regard to state minimum wage laws. I was arguing that I didn't see how the Constitution mandated a federal court to stop such a state law.

At the beginning of the discussion I had stated that I could see how federal minimum wage laws were not constitutional, but saw state minimum wage laws as being a non-federal matter. The only relevant constitution being that of the paticular state.

25 posted on 01/25/2010 2:03:12 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Well dang...there it is:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

I guess there is a case to be made for not allowing states to have minimum wage...but presumably only in regard to an existing contract obligation.

26 posted on 01/25/2010 2:12:24 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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