Science > Abortion > 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Unconstitutional.
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"LeMod Pol" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2004 09:04:49 AM |
| Object: |
2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Unconstitutional. |
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
second such ruling in three months -- even though he
called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
ban for not containing an exception to protect a
woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
of abortion.
The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
decision after decision striking these bans, saying
they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
will finally stop.''
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
the Supreme Court.
''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized medical procedure.''
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
legal hope for the law's supporters.
''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
very transparent in his articulation of his personal
views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
27 Aug 2004 03:23:31 PM |
|
|
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in the
campaign.
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
second such ruling in three months -- even though he
called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
ban for not containing an exception to protect a
woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
of abortion.
The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
decision after decision striking these bans, saying
they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
will finally stop.''
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
the Supreme Court.
''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized medical procedure.''
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
legal hope for the law's supporters.
''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
very transparent in his articulation of his personal
views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 07:12:59 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule according
to law.
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
second such ruling in three months -- even though he
called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
ban for not containing an exception to protect a
woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
of abortion.
The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
decision after decision striking these bans, saying
they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
will finally stop.''
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
the Supreme Court.
''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized medical procedure.''
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
legal hope for the law's supporters.
''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
very transparent in his articulation of his personal
views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 07:45:05 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
Never hear of "reading between the lines?"
Never heard of subtext?
How naive. Grow up.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule according
to law.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Good sheep.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
second such ruling in three months -- even though he
called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
ban for not containing an exception to protect a
woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
of abortion.
The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
decision after decision striking these bans, saying
they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
will finally stop.''
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
the Supreme Court.
''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized medical procedure.''
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
legal hope for the law's supporters.
''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
very transparent in his articulation of his personal
views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 09:26:56 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l7%Xc.13251$6m6.9395@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in
the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
Never hear of "reading between the lines?"
You mean the invisible words that are not even there?
STUPID! ILLEGAL!
Never heard of subtext?
How naive. Grow up.
No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who break the law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the
President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule
according
to law.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Good sheep.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
You are baaaaaaing?
Your lack of respect for sheep is another reason you will die.
Shepherds kill wolves when they need to.
Shepherds throw rocks at wolves.
Shepherds will kill enemies of the sheep.
It happens.
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
second such ruling in three months -- even though he
called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
ban for not containing an exception to protect a
woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
of abortion.
The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
decision after decision striking these bans, saying
they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
will finally stop.''
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
the Supreme Court.
''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized medical procedure.''
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
legal hope for the law's supporters.
''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
very transparent in his articulation of his personal
views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 10:06:28 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:yC0Yc.38005$%n4.21464@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l7%Xc.13251$6m6.9395@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in
the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to
imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
Never hear of "reading between the lines?"
You mean the invisible words that are not even there?
STUPID! ILLEGAL!
Pay attention.
I was talking about the WRITERS of the laws, not the judges.
If you think that every law's purpose is obvious by reading it, you're a
fool.
Never heard of subtext?
How naive. Grow up.
No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who break the
law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the
President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule
according
to law.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Good sheep.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
You are baaaaaaing?
Your lack of respect for sheep is another reason you will die.
Shepherds kill wolves when they need to.
Shepherds throw rocks at wolves.
Shepherds will kill enemies of the sheep.
It happens.
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
second such ruling in three months -- even though he
called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized.''
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
ban for not containing an exception to protect a
woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
of abortion.
The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
decision after decision striking these bans, saying
they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
will finally stop.''
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
the Supreme Court.
''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized medical procedure.''
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
legal hope for the law's supporters.
''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
very transparent in his articulation of his personal
views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 04:52:58 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UKbYc.13463$tV3.7528@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:yC0Yc.38005$%n4.21464@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l7%Xc.13251$6m6.9395@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title
in
the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to
imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
Never hear of "reading between the lines?"
You mean the invisible words that are not even there?
STUPID! ILLEGAL!
Pay attention.
I was talking about the WRITERS of the laws, not the judges.
Writers are readers?
Writers are drafting law, not interpreting it or nullifying it.
They wrote it for a very specific purpose and that was to outlaw Partial
Birth Abortions when the life of the mother is not in jeopardy.
If you think that every law's purpose is obvious by reading it, you're a
fool.
You're a fool for not reading the law as it is written.
So, stop calling me a fool, because you, as a fool, have no way of making
that determination.
Never heard of subtext?
How naive. Grow up.
No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who break the
law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the
President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule
according
to law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 05:27:59 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:IHhYc.42447$cx.20637@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UKbYc.13463$tV3.7528@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:yC0Yc.38005$%n4.21464@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l7%Xc.13251$6m6.9395@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
"... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
particular types of abortion."
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter"
title
in
the
campaign.
That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to
imprison
any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!
Never hear of "reading between the lines?"
You mean the invisible words that are not even there?
STUPID! ILLEGAL!
Pay attention.
I was talking about the WRITERS of the laws, not the judges.
Writers are readers?
Writers are drafting law, not interpreting it or nullifying it.
They wrote it for a very specific purpose and that was to outlaw Partial
Birth Abortions when the life of the mother is not in jeopardy.
If you think that every law's purpose is obvious by reading it, you're a
fool.
You're a fool for not reading the law as it is written.
So, stop calling me a fool, because you, as a fool, have no way of making
that determination.
Pay attention or keep quiet.
Never heard of subtext?
How naive. Grow up.
No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who break
the
law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.
The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the
President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule
according
to law.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 06:10:52 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:06:28 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<UKbYc.13463$tV3.7528@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
You mean the invisible words that are not even there?
STUPID! ILLEGAL!
Pay attention.
I was talking about the WRITERS of the laws, not the judges.
If you think that every law's purpose is obvious by reading it, you're a
fool.
That is a major reason for the legal profession and legal system - to
reduce ambiguity in legal documents including laws and to interpret
the laws themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 08:32:33 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:9ae3j09g3go8f1kprenjjsf3jbot7pvf47@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:06:28 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<UKbYc.13463$tV3.7528@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
You mean the invisible words that are not even there?
STUPID! ILLEGAL!
Pay attention.
I was talking about the WRITERS of the laws, not the judges.
If you think that every law's purpose is obvious by reading it, you're a
fool.
That is a major reason for the legal profession and legal system - to
reduce ambiguity in legal documents including laws and to interpret
the laws themselves.
But in the case we're talking about, the law was written for one purpose,
but reads like it's for another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 05:13:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:32:33 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<RVkYc.12965$oM6.10871@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:9ae3j09g3go8f1kprenjjsf3jbot7pvf47@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:06:28 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<UKbYc.13463$tV3.7528@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
You mean the invisible words that are not even there?
STUPID! ILLEGAL!
Pay attention.
I was talking about the WRITERS of the laws, not the judges.
If you think that every law's purpose is obvious by reading it, you're a
fool.
That is a major reason for the legal profession and legal system - to
reduce ambiguity in legal documents including laws and to interpret
the laws themselves.
But in the case we're talking about, the law was written for one purpose,
but reads like it's for another.
The meaning of a law is established through judicial opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 07:51:17 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:57l4j0tseqnim8avj07vgkhekuava85rha@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:32:33 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<RVkYc.12965$oM6.10871@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:9ae3j09g3go8f1kprenjjsf3jbot7pvf47@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:06:28 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<UKbYc.13463$tV3.7528@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
You mean the invisible words that are not even there?
STUPID! ILLEGAL!
Pay attention.
I was talking about the WRITERS of the laws, not the judges.
If you think that every law's purpose is obvious by reading it, you're
a
fool.
That is a major reason for the legal profession and legal system - to
reduce ambiguity in legal documents including laws and to interpret
the laws themselves.
But in the case we're talking about, the law was written for one purpose,
but reads like it's for another.
The meaning of a law is established through judicial opinion.
Sorry, You still don't get it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 07:15:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:51:17 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<DZtYc.44295$cx.120@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
That is a major reason for the legal profession and legal system - to
reduce ambiguity in legal documents including laws and to interpret
the laws themselves.
But in the case we're talking about, the law was written for one purpose,
but reads like it's for another.
The meaning of a law is established through judicial opinion.
Sorry, You still don't get it.
On the contrary, I am aware of what you are trying to do. And
failing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LeMod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 08:54:14 AM |
|
|
Roger wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:9ae3j09g3go8f1kprenjjsf3jbot7pvf47@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:06:28 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<UKbYc.13463$tV3.7528@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
If you think that every law's purpose is obvious by reading it, you're a
fool.
That is a major reason for the legal profession and legal system - to
reduce ambiguity in legal documents including laws and to interpret
the laws themselves.
But in the case we're talking about, the law was written for one purpose,
but reads like it's for another.
The only thing important in that act is what was NOT written.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 09:41:53 AM |
|
|
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4131E001.D7418723@igs.net...
Roger wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:9ae3j09g3go8f1kprenjjsf3jbot7pvf47@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:06:28 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<UKbYc.13463$tV3.7528@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
If you think that every law's purpose is obvious by reading it,
you're a
fool.
That is a major reason for the legal profession and legal system - to
reduce ambiguity in legal documents including laws and to interpret
the laws themselves.
But in the case we're talking about, the law was written for one
purpose,
but reads like it's for another.
The only thing important in that act is what was NOT written.
Not quite. For the obvious purpose, yes. But the real reason has been
served. The President and yea voters get to call themselves "abortion
fighters" in the campaign.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 12:58:39 PM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RWlYc.13045$ln7.10573@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4131E001.D7418723@igs.net...
Roger wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:9ae3j09g3go8f1kprenjjsf3jbot7pvf47@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:06:28 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<UKbYc.13463$tV3.7528@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
If you think that every law's purpose is obvious by reading it,
you're a
fool.
That is a major reason for the legal profession and legal system -
to
reduce ambiguity in legal documents including laws and to interpret
the laws themselves.
But in the case we're talking about, the law was written for one
purpose,
but reads like it's for another.
The only thing important in that act is what was NOT written.
Not quite. For the obvious purpose, yes. But the real reason has been
served. The President and yea voters get to call themselves "abortion
fighters" in the campaign.
You failed to read the law itself?
What the law says it what it intends.
Unlike MLB anti-gambling statute, which is not law, which bars Pete Rose,
the player with more hits than any other player in MLB history, from
eligibility for induction into the Hall of Fame.
Had Rose violated the intent of the rule forbidding gambling on baseball,
which, imo, is to prevent corruption of the game, something which has never
even once been addressed, then exclusion would be something to consider,
yet, obviously Mr. Rose's gambling habits were not of the sort that would
have implicated him for disbarment since he played for so many years and
attained one of the most desirable places in the record books, MORE HITS
THAN ANY OTHER PLAYER TO HAVE PLAYED MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL!
All this said without knowing if he threw a game or not, which, in my
estimation he did not based upon all testimony in this matter to date.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LeMod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 11:24:42 AM |
|
|
Roger wrote:
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4131E001.D7418723@igs.net...
Roger wrote:
But in the case we're talking about, the law was written for one
purpose, but reads like it's for another.
The only thing important in that act is what was NOT written.
Not quite. For the obvious purpose, yes. But the real reason has been
served. The President and yea voters get to call themselves "abortion
fighters" in the campaign.
Exactly
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LeMod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 01:26:17 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
You are baaaaaaing?
Your lack of respect for sheep is another reason you will die.
Shepherds kill wolves when they need to.
Shepherds throw rocks at wolves.
Shepherds will kill enemies of the sheep.
It happens.
You need to stop your threats before your account is
cancelled for net abuse.
I have read all five of your posts and find your
stupidity and ignorance overweening. See your mental
health professional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 01:41:39 PM |
|
|
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4130C9BB.ABA48EA1@igs.net...
Johnny wrote:
You are baaaaaaing?
Your lack of respect for sheep is another reason you will die.
Shepherds kill wolves when they need to.
Shepherds throw rocks at wolves.
Shepherds will kill enemies of the sheep.
It happens.
You need to stop your threats before your account is
cancelled for net abuse.
There is no threat in my messages.
I have read all five of your posts and find your
stupidity and ignorance overweening. See your mental
health professional.
Your stupidity is what is evident here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 02:48:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:41:39 -0400, Johnny wrote:
"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4130C9BB.ABA48EA1@igs.net...
Johnny wrote:
You are baaaaaaing?
Your lack of respect for sheep is another reason you will die.
Shepherds kill wolves when they need to. Shepherds throw rocks at
wolves.
Shepherds will kill enemies of the sheep. It happens.
You need to stop your threats before your account is cancelled for net
abuse.
There is no threat in my messages.
I have read all five of your posts and find your stupidity and ignorance
overweening. See your mental health professional.
Your stupidity is what is evident here.
Another idiot added to my Bozo Filter.
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 07:00:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:26:56 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<yC0Yc.38005$%n4.21464@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who break the law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.
Please refer me to a law that requires judges not to reverse laws they
judge illegal under current law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
28 Aug 2004 08:43:33 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:nl62j05q660ccoa7tktq8koq4c6lo605u4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:26:56 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<yC0Yc.38005$%n4.21464@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who break the
law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.
Please refer me to a law that requires judges not to reverse laws they
judge illegal under current law.
Refer to the law itself.
Judges of the law are to rule according to the law, not transgress it or
allow the transgression of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 06:08:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:43:33 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<TwaYc.39470$%n4.36163@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:nl62j05q660ccoa7tktq8koq4c6lo605u4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:26:56 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<yC0Yc.38005$%n4.21464@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who break the
law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.
Please refer me to a law that requires judges not to reverse laws they
judge illegal under current law.
Refer to the law itself.
Judges of the law are to rule according to the law, not transgress it or
allow the transgression of it.
The law itself requires judges to consider the legality of the legal
point being considered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 12:52:05 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:28e3j0ddmghkv080j99fpg5pqa291msbqs@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:43:33 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<TwaYc.39470$%n4.36163@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:nl62j05q660ccoa7tktq8koq4c6lo605u4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:26:56 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<yC0Yc.38005$%n4.21464@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who break
the
law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.
Please refer me to a law that requires judges not to reverse laws they
judge illegal under current law.
Refer to the law itself.
Judges of the law are to rule according to the law, not transgress it or
allow the transgression of it.
The law itself requires judges to consider the legality of the legal
point being considered.
Cite that law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 05:18:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:52:05 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<GQnYc.42950$cx.18124@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:28e3j0ddmghkv080j99fpg5pqa291msbqs@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:43:33 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<TwaYc.39470$%n4.36163@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:nl62j05q660ccoa7tktq8koq4c6lo605u4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:26:56 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<yC0Yc.38005$%n4.21464@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who break
the
law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.
Please refer me to a law that requires judges not to reverse laws they
judge illegal under current law.
Refer to the law itself.
Judges of the law are to rule according to the law, not transgress it or
allow the transgression of it.
The law itself requires judges to consider the legality of the legal
point being considered.
Cite that law.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the
supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good
behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a
compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance
in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties made,. . .
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 07:50:03 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:85l4j05iao4b07mbnond1fjadquj61alca@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:52:05 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<GQnYc.42950$cx.18124@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:28e3j0ddmghkv080j99fpg5pqa291msbqs@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:43:33 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<TwaYc.39470$%n4.36163@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:nl62j05q660ccoa7tktq8koq4c6lo605u4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:26:56 -0400, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<yC0Yc.38005$%n4.21464@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who
break
the
law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.
Please refer me to a law that requires judges not to reverse laws
they
judge illegal under current law.
Refer to the law itself.
Judges of the law are to rule according to the law, not transgress it
or
allow the transgression of it.
The law itself requires judges to consider the legality of the legal
point being considered.
Cite that law.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the
supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good
behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a
compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance
in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties made,. . .
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section1
So, if you read that word for word it states that the Courts are to rule
according to the law that is made by Congress.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties made,. . .
"all cases, IN law and equity"
What part of IN law do you not understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 07:14:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:50:03 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<tYtYc.44290$cx.36591@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
The law itself requires judges to consider the legality of the legal
point being considered.
Cite that law.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the
supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good
behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a
compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance
in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties made,. . .
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section1
So, if you read that word for word it states that the Courts are to rule
according to the law that is made by Congress.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties made,. . .
"all cases, IN law and equity"
What part of IN law do you not understand?
You are overlooking case law. See Marbury vs Madison.
http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa1804/In1804/HeadlinesSupremeCourt.htm
"This was the first time that the Supreme Court declared an act of
Congress invalid, which opened a new role for the court, eventually
gaining for it an important place as the third, co-equal branch of
government, along with the Congress and the Executive."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
29 Aug 2004 10:50:28 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:q2s4j016hlmrkbkth4mn1lp3q4vjnra0pk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:50:03 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<tYtYc.44290$cx.36591@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
The law itself requires judges to consider the legality of the legal
point being considered.
Cite that law.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the
supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good
behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a
compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance
in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties made,. . .
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#sectio
n1
So, if you read that word for word it states that the Courts are to rule
according to the law that is made by Congress.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties made,. . .
"all cases, IN law and equity"
What part of IN law do you not understand?
You are overlooking case law. See Marbury vs Madison.
http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa1804/In1804/HeadlinesSupremeCourt.htm
"This was the first time that the Supreme Court declared an act of
Congress invalid, which opened a new role for the court, eventually
gaining for it an important place as the third, co-equal branch of
government, along with the Congress and the Executive."
Did you notice how the supported the President then though?
In the PBA case Bush's signature has been disrespected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
30 Aug 2004 07:37:47 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:50:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<EBwYc.45125$cx.27282@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You are overlooking case law. See Marbury vs Madison.
http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa1804/In1804/HeadlinesSupremeCourt.htm
"This was the first time that the Supreme Court declared an act of
Congress invalid, which opened a new role for the court, eventually
gaining for it an important place as the third, co-equal branch of
government, along with the Congress and the Executive."
Did you notice how the supported the President then though?
In the PBA case Bush's signature has been disrespected.
Nonsense. The signature of the President is simply a legal
requirement to complete passage of a bill and has nothing to do with
whether that bill is in and of itself legal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
30 Aug 2004 10:46:50 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:2q76j0pij2sig6ronghokphuikb62fn7uq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:50:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<EBwYc.45125$cx.27282@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You are overlooking case law. See Marbury vs Madison.
http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa1804/In1804/HeadlinesSupremeCourt.
htm
"This was the first time that the Supreme Court declared an act of
Congress invalid, which opened a new role for the court, eventually
gaining for it an important place as the third, co-equal branch of
government, along with the Congress and the Executive."
Did you notice how the supported the President then though?
In the PBA case Bush's signature has been disrespected.
Nonsense.
Read it LONNEY TUNES.
The President was supported then.
Do you remember Abraham Lincolln and how he was supported?
Do you recall what causes revolutions and civil wars?
Your CHOICE to say what I say is nonsense is infuriating for millions of US
Citizens.
The signature of the President is simply a legal
requirement to complete passage of a bill and has nothing to do with
whether that bill is in and of itself legal.
And, it is a DIRECT ORDER from the President's Office upon the entire
Nation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: 2nd Federal Judge: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional. |
30 Aug 2004 04:20:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:46:50 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<N4HYc.40775$N11.26195@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:2q76j0pij2sig6ronghokphuikb62fn7uq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:50:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<EBwYc.45125$cx.27282@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You are overlooking case law. See Marbury vs Madison.
http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa1804/In1804/HeadlinesSupremeCourt.
htm
"This was the first time that the Supreme Court declared an act of
Congress invalid, which opened a new role for the court, eventually
gaining for it an important place as the third, co-equal branch of
government, along with the Congress and the Executive."
Did you notice how the supported the President then though?
In the PBA case Bush's signature has been disrespected.
Nonsense.
Read it LONNEY TUNES.
The President was supported then.
Do you remember Abraham Lincolln and how he was supported?
I recall his election started a war and he left office by being shot.
Do you recall what causes revolutions and civil wars?
Each is different.
Your CHOICE to say what I say is nonsense is infuriating for millions of US
Citizens.
But a long away from a civil war.
The signature of the President is simply a legal
requirement to complete passage of a bill and has nothing to do with
whether that bill is in and of itself legal.
And, it is a DIRECT ORDER from the President's Office upon the entire
Nation.
Which can easily mean squat. The authority of the president is
limited, especially his authority to issue orders.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
