Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
From a cold strategic view, they need to be worry about a slippery slope. It is not as if this victory is going to do anything but move the pro-lifers into the next battleground.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is why most pro-abortion people don't like this decision.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was pretty surprised Thomas had upheld this law since it's pretty clearly unconstitutional (since nothing in the Consitutition grants the feds this power), and Thomas usually rules based on what the Constitution says (unlike any of the other Justices). Then I realized it was almost certainly due to the way the case was brought. If they come back arguing that Congress doesn't have the power to make this law, I'm quite sure Thomas will switch sides. The real question is whether the "liberals" on the bench stick with their interpretation of the constitution that the feds do have this power or become hypocrites in order to get this law off the books.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually wonder to the extent that Supreme Court Justices are partisan rather than ideological. To be more precise, do they formulate a ruling in a top-down manner, based on the decision they want to give, adjusting their ideology, or might a strict constructionist go against conservative party line in some aspects of case regarding drug regulation and gay marriage? I've always thought of the Supreme Court as a haven for legal scholarship, with more of the former - am I wrong? Is it more a testing ground for different, more partisan views focusing on the outcome rather than the methodology?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you look a the large number of 5-4 decisions and notice it's almost alway the same 4 conservatives VS the same 4 liberals the story is told.

[MtSmalls]

"Morality" and politics aside here, five MEN, in their infinite wisdom, have banned a medical procedure in the United States. Not because it is harmful to women or poses a threat to the women undergoing the procedure, but because they didn't like what it stands for.

This is a procedure found necessary and proper by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists, in certain cases. Necessary...to save a womans life. And for the first time since R v. W passed, the restriction has no allowance for safeguarding that woman's life.

From Ginsburg's dissent: "The Court's hostility to the right Casey and Roe secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists not by the title of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label "abortion doctors."

This is an unconscionable attack on women's health. I sincerely hope that this action is brought and decided before the first woman is killed due to this procedure being banned.

[kniper]

[ QUOTE ]
The lawyers trying to declare the law unconstitutional missed the violation of the commerce clause. Justice Thomas even mentioned this in the opinion.

Someone will refile a suit and challenge it again, this legal battle isn't over.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may have been done strategically. This way, it is possible for a district court to issue a preliminary injunction while waiting the outcome of the commerce clause issue.

Without having looked at the case law pertaining to abortion in commerce, I would guess that the SC would uphold the commerce clause issue for the very least because of travel b/w states to get abortions. They have pretty loose standards on what touches the commerce clause.

Alternatively though, you know that every red State is going to ban this procedure ASAP if a preliminary injunction is enacted, kinda making the case moot for a good portion of the country