Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Mislabeled "partial-birth" abortion law ruled unconstitutional
Well, it was inevitable that this shoddily written piece of crap would fail in the court system. Even proponents of a ban on such abortions understood that the law was poorly designed and did not ensure enough safeguards and exceptions for the health of the mother.
This makes the second significant defeat for John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration in a week. Last week, Oregon refused to ban assisted suicide as requested by the Justice Department. I'm sure Bush and company will be crying about "activist judges."
Its amazing that when such judges rule on the basis of law rather than subjective interpretation, they are deemed "activists." But in 2000, in the case of Gore v Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court's proper decision to make every effort to count votes. Florida's SC had relied on the fairly straight-forward election statutes which insisted that the state count any votes, despite potential flaws, which clearly demonstrate the will of the voter. The US Supreme Court offered no basis for overruling the Florida decision, and instead, made a judgement so skewed many have claimed it broke down many barriers between the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.
In so doing, the Justices made a "non-precedent" setting decision to stop the vote counts, using the 14th Amendment quite liberally to invoke equal protection rights. That is true activistic activity, not the actions of judges, such as U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton from today's abortion case, who rule on cases with the support of legal precedent.
Don't forget to keep an eye on the Supreme Court this month, when several important decision are expected to be handed down.
This makes the second significant defeat for John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration in a week. Last week, Oregon refused to ban assisted suicide as requested by the Justice Department. I'm sure Bush and company will be crying about "activist judges."
Its amazing that when such judges rule on the basis of law rather than subjective interpretation, they are deemed "activists." But in 2000, in the case of Gore v Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court's proper decision to make every effort to count votes. Florida's SC had relied on the fairly straight-forward election statutes which insisted that the state count any votes, despite potential flaws, which clearly demonstrate the will of the voter. The US Supreme Court offered no basis for overruling the Florida decision, and instead, made a judgement so skewed many have claimed it broke down many barriers between the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.
In so doing, the Justices made a "non-precedent" setting decision to stop the vote counts, using the 14th Amendment quite liberally to invoke equal protection rights. That is true activistic activity, not the actions of judges, such as U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton from today's abortion case, who rule on cases with the support of legal precedent.
Don't forget to keep an eye on the Supreme Court this month, when several important decision are expected to be handed down.
