Comments on: sandra day.

By: ezra

ezra — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 07:32:51 +0000

Personally, I don’t feel Roe is any real danger from the courts. The precident has been set, having even been admitted by the original attorney that argued the case for Wade. What I think would be a more effective place to focus attention is Congress, who’s the real threat to choice (such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act).
It could be argued that without Sandra on the bench, there won’t be enough support to maintain the “undue burden” test (defined as a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability”) established by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Considering how the court has plucked opinions out of the ether before (Bush v. Gore), I wouldn’t be shocked if they did it again. Yes, B V. G (b v.g…guided by voices…g.b.v…coincidence? perhaps little Rove voices?) was written to quell a national debate which had no end in sight, it was still a crappy decision.
Let’s just hope that Stevens holds on till after ’08 (he’s 85!). If not, the next 50 years on the court could look real bad.

By: jck

jck — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:45:17 +0000

maybe its the kind of thing that will make people realize they need to start working for what they want, or change what it is they want. maybe a hard-right justice would be a wake-up call that if you don’t want certain policies in place, you have to vote and run for office and generally do things to make that happen. maybe its time to stop writing and thinking about crap (not mentioning anyone in particular, everyone does it)

By: L,P

L,P — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 05:38:22 +0000

PS- R v. W might be less threatened than one might think b/c it’s a swing issue with voters, and the Republicans cannot afford to give up any ground in the foreseeable future. But of course, Supreme Court justices operate independently of outside political influence, so who knows?

By: L,P

L,P — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 05:32:14 +0000

Let’s not forget the sweetheart deal the Dems gave the Pubs last month to avoid the “nuclear option”. Conspiracy warning: kinda looks like someone has a plan. O’Connor retires somewhat unexpectedly, will be replaced by a semi-consensus-slightly-more-right candidate in the spirit of the aforementioned truce, Rehnquist holds on for another couple months, retires, Pubs demand super-con replacement, Court is farther right. Checks and balances are awesome.
Dems are getting played, mang. For all the psychodrama of ’04, Dean is sleepin’. Get yr weight up, Howie D. (fave member of Backstreet, btw).

By: jck

jck — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:58:56 +0000

sorry about double posting

By: jck

jck — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:57:19 +0000

there was an article saying people will just be turned off by the partisanship of this whole thing….but if people do that then they are the ones who will be worse off for it