Heller arguments on C-Span right now

[Boomer 50]

After 5 minutes in the argument, DC is losing it's ass. Dellinger is being torn apart by the Justices including Kennedy and Ginsburg.

I think Heller is going to win big.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. context please

[Boomer 50]

2. Dellinger has contradicted himself several times

under heavy questioning by the Justices. He first claimed that there is no personal 2nd Amendment right to defend ones self, then he came back and admitted that there is. The Justices are using that, as well as the grammar of the 2nd to shred his argument.

It's on right now, I urge all of you to go to C-Span's website and watch this. It's historical.

[virginia mountainman]

3. Dellinger is being SHREDDED...

He has walked all over and contradicted his own arguments, several times.....

He has made several MISS-STATEMENTS about DC law, and History in general..

[gorfle]

4. It's great!

Yeah, it's awesome so far.

They aren't being gentle with Clement, either, but the argument is definitely going Clement's way right now.

They did skirt by the fact that the militias of old no longer exist - I wish they had touched on that more deeply.

[davepc]

5. Did DC find the most incompetent lawyer they could find to argue this?!

[virginia mountainman]

6. Yes...and they hired him a couple of months ago...

After the POLITICAL firing of experienced council that had been arguing the case from the beginning.

[virginia mountainman]

7. Dellinger is back up....

And they are doing the "floor wax" with him now....after they did the mopping with him earlier...


Feeling good about this, from the nature of the questioning being delivered by the Justices.

Maybe we can, as Democrats, finally get this monkey off our backs, a clear ruling here would do that.

[Indy Lurker]

8. I put it at a 5 -4 split

Alito
Roberts
Kennedy
Scalia

Supporting handgun ownership

Stevens
Bryer
Ginsburg
Supporting the DC gun Ban

Thomas didn't ask any questions, but I would put him with Roberts, and Souter leaned towards Stevens, but he may go the other way.


I think they al believed there is right for individuals to own firearms, the question is whether it included handguns.

I think Souters voter could go either way, depending on how strongly the opinion is worded.

[iverglas]

9. well lookie there

Alito
Roberts
Kennedy
Scalia
Supporting handgun ownership
Thomas didn't ask any questions, but I would put him with Roberts

Hey, isn't that the same crowd that decided it was kewl for the US government to violate women's fundamental rights? Yes, I do think it was:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJ2HV82&show_article=1

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

I'll bet there's someone in the world who's surprised that (a) this crowd is likely to come down on that side in a firearms case, and (b) the ones who come down on that side in a firearms case all also enthusiastically joined in the assault on women's rights by the vicious right-wing government of the US.

Nobody's surprised hereabouts, though, I suspect.

[Indy Lurker]

14. even a broken clock is right twice a day n/t

[iverglas]

15. FIVE broken clocks??

All chiming in unison??

When all four of the fully functioning clocks are telling you the exact same, totally different time?

Thou really doest attempt to stretch credulity to whole new lengths.

[Indy Lurker]

17. It's important to have goals.

"Thou really doest attempt to stretch credulity to whole new lengths."


It's important to have goals.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. At least they got this one right.

They aren't your judges anyway. Complain about your judges in Canada. You'll aren't fond of it when we tell you how to live.


David

[iverglas]

28. "You'll aren't fond of it when we tell you how to live."

You'll aren't fond of it when we tell you how to live.

And you'd have some reason for saying this ... if ... you had some reason for saying this.

I mean, like, for instance, if I had told you how to live.

If you think I've done that, I'm sure it will be an easy matter for you to quote me saying something that you think amounted to doing that, and then I'll be able to patiently and gently explain where you went wrong, if I can figure it out.

You can live as you bloody well like. Unless and until how you live puts someone else at risk, for instance.

The persons at risk might actually be my fellow Canadians, when we're talking about the right-wing assholery that makes it possible for gun-runners to buy firearms in the US with the intent of smuggling them into Canada. Or they might just be my fellow human beings, people killed and injured and abused by people with firearms. I don't shut up when I see people being killed or injured or abused in Congo or Afghanistan and their governments doing nothing about it. Why would you consider the US immune? I sure don't consider Canada immune.

So I'll just go right on complaining about your pet judges. The ones who gave THE WORLD George W. Bush. Well, not so much "gave" as extorted payment for, in blood. So I mean, really, if you don't want us complaining about your judges, how's about you make sure they don't give us anything to complain about? Giving us our money back for George W. Bush would be a nice start. You want him, you want the court that put him where he is, you pay for him, sez I.

You don't want him, then speak up and complain about those judges. You won't hear me complaining.

[Boomer 50]

34. Our "pet" judges

at least aren't politically motivated and willing to run roughshod over an enumerated right in our Constitution. If you guys in Canada feel that there is an issue with America, then by all means, quit complaining and put up a freaking border fence and stay the hell out of our business.

Otherwise, stop trying to subvert our Constitution and way of life for your desire to disarm us. It won't work and SCOTUS is going to re-affirm that with the Heller decision.

[iverglas]

35. hahahahahahahah HAH!

Our "pet" judges
at least aren't politically motivated

That's really just one of those "no comment" things.

Lucky I didn't award both ears and the tail to my profileless new little friend WWFZD in that other thread. I've still got 'em, and I humbly hand 'em to you.


If you guys in Canada feel that there is an issue with America, then by all means, quit complaining and put up a freaking border fence and stay the hell out of our business.

Ah, the pissing and moaning. Poor persecuted pet!


Otherwise, stop trying to subvert our Constitution and way of life for your desire to disarm us.

I must be much more big and powerful than I ever thought. But no, surely you're not telling me you're afraid of speech, and telling me to stop engaging in it?!?


It won't work and SCOTUS is going to re-affirm that with the Heller decision.

Your Supreme Court is going to re-affirm that my puny efforts to bring sanity and reason to your benighted land won't work?

Okay. One might have thought it would have better things to do, but I'll watch for my name in lights. Win or lose, the publicity will be fine!

[zanne]

37. My, my.

Looks like somebody got under your skin, Boomer50. Defensive much? I've heard more liberal talk on Rugh Limbaugh's show.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bossy22]

16. ahh the partial birth abortion ban

the biggest peice of symbolic legislation yet. There is a doctor in my temple who works for planned parenthood and i remember discussing this with him- he said the act was purely symbolic because almost no doctors did partial birth ban abortions unless the mother's life was in danger- or great bodily harm would come of the mother if she gave birth....and the act allows for those exceptions


this doesnt mean im for the act, im just pointing out that it is utterly pointless and political grandstanding at its finest

[iverglas]

19. no, the violate women's fundamental rights law

There's no such thing as "partial birth abortion". That's what your doctor should actually have told you.

Your doctor might also have been expected to tell you that as a practising professional, he was seriously distressed by the attempt made by ignorant, vicious politicians to interfere in his or any physician's ability to provide the treatment for their patients that they believed was in their patients' interests.

But since what he actually said was to the effect of

almost no doctors did partial birth ban abortions unless the mother's life was in danger- or great bodily harm would come of the mother if she gave birth....and the act allows for those exceptions

-- all of which are 100% FALSE -- well, if I were you, I'd look for another doctor. Or maybe just start thinking for myself and be sure to research every single thing he tells me in future. Just in case his knowledge about anything else health-related is as abysmal as in this case.

The law MAKES NO EXCEPTIONS for a woman's health. You might tell your doctor that people who know so little about something should really refrain from opening their mouth about it. They make themselves look stupid.

In point of fact, the procedure is one regarded as useful for terminations in the second trimester of pregnancy, and where there is no "great bodily harm" foreseen if the woman delivers -- a point at which, per a previous US Supreme Court, the state has NO justification for interfering in women's choices and the treatments their doctors provide.

Women who are pregnant may or may not be mothers. Their parental status is of no relevance to this situation.

I'm always willing to help. Here ya go:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18269940.htm

The decision by the conservative majority that included both of Bush's appointees marked the first federal ban on an abortion procedure to be upheld since the court's landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that women have a basic constitutional right to abortion.

The majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected the argument the law must be struck down because it imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion, that it was too vague or broad and it failed to provide an exception for abortions to protect the health of a pregnant woman.

... The court's four liberals -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer -- dissented.

Ginsburg called the decision alarming and took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent from the bench.

"The court's opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists," she said.

"For the first time since Roe, the court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health," Ginsburg said.

But you really do need to read all of the reasons to get the full flavour of the vicious, rotten misogny and right-wingery of your heroes, and the integrity and intelligence of Ginsburg.


Yammer yammer yammer about how restrictions on access to firearms are gonna get someone killed.

Well, news for you. Pregnancy and delivery DO get people killed. And forcing someone to endure either of them -- forcing someone to accept a risk of death, and then denying her what may be the best means to protect her life -- is kinda not quite constitutional, wouldncha say?

I mean, someone who cared about anybody but him/herself might.

One would almost say that you might see something analogous to your own little worries in the situation. The great big difference, of course, would be that pregnant women are already in the risk situation, and that unrestricted access to the means they might choose to avert or reduce the risk will never, ever, ever put anyone else at risk.

There. You can consider yourself minimially informed now.

Run along and listen to your 18th century stopped grandfather clocks doing what they do so well. Standing up for whining white guys and pissing on everybody else. (And I don't give a crap if the whining white guys got themselves an African-American pin-up this time around. I'd just prefer she and Clarence Thomas would engage in their shoeshine activities somewhere out of the public spotlight; children of colour deserve something better by way of role models.)

[gorfle]

22. Please take it to another thread and forum.

Abortions have nothing to do with guns.

[iverglas]

23. hahahahahaha

Yes, exposing the members of the US Supreme Court who are vicious misogynistic right-wing scum-sucking toadies of the Bush administration, AND ARE PROBABLY GOING TO STRIKE DOWN the DC firearms laws, for what they are, and demonstrating who and what it is that the firearms-huggers are embracing here ... yes, that's just soooo nothing to do with "guns".

News for you. This forum is for:

Discussion of gun-related public policy issues ...

and the true facts about the political appointees who are in the process of making that public policy today are really just a wee bit germane to that discussion.

Even if someone would like to pretend they aren't what they are.

[gorfle]

32. I disagree.

News for you. This forum is for: Discussion of gun-related public policy issues ...

So please take your discussion of abortion to some other forum. Thanks.

[iverglas]

33. awwww

Your association with the right-wing scum-suckers on the US Supreme Court left you speechless, did it?

Awwwwwwwwww.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

56. I was wondering about that myself.

Actually, the people who want to ban abortion are roughly as unrealistic and emotionally motivated as those that want to ban guns.

You'll notice that they both treat their pet issue like it's 'the ultimate evil', and the only solution is to just "make it go away" by making it illegal.

Know how the anti-choice folks demonize the pro-choice people as 'baby killing monsters'?
Anti-Gun folks do the same thing with gun rights people when they call them 'gun-loving maniacs'.

The solution to both gun crime and abortion is prosperity and education. Wherever you have low crime rates, you tend to have a fair disbursement of wealth and/or more educated people. When the economy is good, gun crime goes down.

People who think that a ban would do much good for either of these issues don't tend to live in reality.

[iverglas]

57. blah blah blah blah blah

Know how the anti-choice folks demonize the pro-choice people as 'baby killing monsters'?
Anti-Gun folks do the same thing with gun rights people when they call them 'gun-loving maniacs'.


The straw is flying fast and furious, isn't it?


The solution to both gun crime and abortion is prosperity and education.

The "solution to abortion"? Who the hell is looking for a solution to abortion? Abortion is a solution to a problem. The desperate and misogynist attempts to liken women's decisions regarding their own problems and their own lives just get uglier.


You'll notice that they both treat their pet issue like it's 'the ultimate evil', and the only solution is to just "make it go away" by making it illegal.

Actually, no, I won't. But things may look different through your spectacles, I guess.


People who think that a ban would do much good for either of these issues don't tend to live in reality.

People who battle straw entities make themselves look ridiculous.

[The Doctor.]

58. You're hysterical. And I mean that.

Sure, abortion is necessary, but I don't know anyone who thinks it's a 'good' alternative to not becoming pregnant in the first place.

Now, just what is this "straw entity" you speak of?

[iverglas]

59. I'll bet you do.

Sure, abortion is necessary, but I don't know anyone who thinks it's a 'good' alternative to not becoming pregnant in the first place.

So the fuck what?

You said:

The solution to both gun crime and abortion is prosperity and education.

And I say -- to clarify for you:

(a) bullshit; and
(b) mind your own business.

To help you a little more:

(a) Unintended/unwanted pregnancy may in some cases be avoided if women have the benefits of prosperity and education. There will still be unintended/unwanted pregnancy. Not all women who experience unintended/unwanted pregnancy are either impoverished or illiterate.

(b) Nobody asked you for a "solution" to her abortion.


Now, just what is this "straw entity" you speak of?

Well ... were you thinking that when I copied and pasted a statement of yours before I made that remark, I was just practising copying and pasting? It was:

People who think that a ban would do much good for either of these issues don't tend to live in reality.

Now, think hard. What is there in that sentence that could conceivably be a straw entity? Surely not the people whose alleged position you are purporting to refute.

Anybody around here advocating a ban on firearms? Hands up now!

I guess it would have to be someone as stupid as to fit into your characterization:

You'll notice that they both treat their pet issue like it's 'the ultimate evil', and the only solution is to just "make it go away" by making it illegal.

And I don't actually know of anyone that stupid. Not even in the anti-choice brigade.

[The Doctor.]

60. Wow, you're nuts.

You jump in here and start behaving like I was talking to you when I posted. I wasn't.

"Anybody around here advocating a ban on firearms? Hands up now!"

Uhhh... did you not bother studying the issue in the OP?

Prosperity and education are far better solutions than bans.

Other than that, you have a serious comprehension problem.

'Bye.

[iverglas]

61. here's a clue for free

You jump in here and start behaving like I was talking to you when I posted. I wasn't.

You jumped into a discussion I was a party to, without being invited.

I don't give a crap who you were talking to.

That should clarify things for you a bit.


Uhhh... did you not bother studying the issue in the OP?

No, of course not. I'm an idiot.

Now, is anybody around here advocating a ban on FIREARMS?

Will studying the OP provide me with the answer to that? I guess it might. The answer would appear to be NO. Are you seeing something different?


Prosperity and education are far better solutions than bans.

So is the magic cloak of invisibility; nobody'd ever get shot if nobody could see them, right?

And of course no prosperous educated person ever uses a firearm to cause harm. Hahahaha.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/thatcher_colin/

It took almost 16 months for Regina police to gather enough evidence to charge Colin Thatcher with first-degree murder in the killing of his ex-wife, JoAnn Wilson. She was beaten and shot in the head in the garage of her home on Jan. 21, 1983.

That one was a very wealthy, rather powerful politician up on this side of the border. Quite well educated, I'm sure.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/02/helmuth-dies.html

Ontario multimillionaire Helmuth Buxbaum, convicted in 1986 for arranging his wife's murder in one of the decade's most lurid trials, has died. He was 67.

... The Crown's case focused on money, saying that nearly $2 million had disappeared from Buxbaum's bank account and that he had recently taken out a $1-million life insurance policy on his wife.

She was found shot in the head three times on July 5, 1984, on a highway near London.

That one was so rich and powerful that he got the local municipal council to expropriate my uncle's house so he could expand his nursing home empire on the property.

Just two that come to mind. When all else failed in their attempts to get rid of their wives, guns did the trick.


Meanwhile, back on planet earth, what would you be saying to the people getting robbed and intimidated and having their children killed in the crossfire between all those unprosperous uneducated people while they wait for prosperity and education to descend from the heavens?

Suck it up, I imagine. Prosperity and education are just around the corner. The gun lobby is going to make sure that the political party who will bring them to you gets elected this time. Meanwhile, join us in wringoug our hands and shedding crocodile tears about the dreadful things all those unprosperous and educated people get up to when they have ready access to firearms. And don't ever stop for a minute to consider how things might be if they did not have ready access to firearms.


Other than that, you have a serious comprehension problem.

You wish.

[The Doctor.]

63. Wow... this is all I need to know you're nuts;

"You jumped into a discussion I was a party to, without being invited."

You're an idiot.

Doesn't mean I don't like you or anything... I just don't want any plants to die tonight.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

29. and I know what prize you'll be getting!

But if you think Clarence Thomas is a nice role model for children of colour ... well, not a very high opinion of children of colour you've got there.

[I work for workers]

50. The PBABA DOES take womens health into account,

by allowing her to use that in her defense should she stand trial for an illegal abortion.

Back on topic: Freedom beating DC is not only a win for gun owners, it's a win for Democrats because it will take the gun issue out of play next November.

[iverglas]

51. for a minute there, one might have thought

that you knew what you were talking about.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

AN ACT
To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

... (e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title <Principals, Accessory after the fact, Misprision of felony> based on a violation of this section.

So ... when you say:

The PBABA DOES take womens health into account,
by allowing her to use that in her defense should she stand trial for an illegal abortion.

... er ... what are you talking about?

Here's what it actually says:

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Wanna take another shot?

Maybe some doctor will just take the risk and perform the procedure when s/he determines it is necessary, say, to preserve his/her patient's fertility (where another procedure is likely to damage her reproductive organs).

Then s/he is charged, and presents a defence of necessity to the charge. I assume this is what you were getting at.

Do let us know how you think that will go. And when you expect to see a doctor making a test case of him/herself.


And back to the subject, how's it feel being in bed with the most vicious ugly pack of right-wing rights-hating scum to pollute the bench in a civilized country in living memory?

[I work for workers]

52. From the PBABA

d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.

I mistakenly implied the mother would be prosecuted. I should have specified the law targets the physician who performs the act. Still, the medical necessity of the procedure is protected by the law, in that it gives the physicians legal recourse to defend their actions in court based on the health of the mother. I'm sure there are plenty of doctors willing to face the law in this regard.

Also back on the subject, it always feels good to be on the right side of an issue. Remember, it's not just the conservative members who are seeing through sham of a case DC put together.

[iverglas]

53. I'm sorry, but can you read?

You copied and pasted it ...

A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the LIFE of the mother whose LIFE was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

LIFE. Not health.

Still, the medical necessity of the procedure is protected by the law, in that it gives the physicians legal recourse to defend their actions in court based on the health of the mother.

NO, it does NOT. Got it yet?


I'm sure there are plenty of doctors willing to face the law in this regard.

Oh, yes indeed. All those doctors who have been driven out of the field because of fears for the safety of themselves, their families, their staff and their patients are going to be lining up to be on call when a case where this procedure might be the best treatment comes up.

Any of your rights that you'd like to offer up on the altar of right-wing ideology? Maybe you'd like a law providing that you may only be given a tonsillectomy where your life is at immediate risk. If you can't find a doctor willing to stake his/her freedom on that judgment, and you die of the infection, you won't be concerned. Your rights weren't violated.

The lions of righteousness on your Supreme Court won't lose any sleep over your loss of your life, I assume. They'd need a conscience, for that.


Also back on the subject, it always feels good to be on the right side of an issue.

Hahaha. The RIGHT side of an issue. Good one.

[I work for workers]

54. You don't see the link between life and health?

The law makes clear that the procedure, legally speaking, has no proven positive health benefits to the mother. I'm not saying that this interpretation is true, just pointing out how our laws currently view the practice.

Keep in mind that the law's decision that partial birth abortions are medically unnecessary are based in part on the lack of evidence proving otherwise. Despite this, the law goes out of its way to specify that such a situation might possibly exist. In the passage we are discussing, it specifically gives doctors the option of defending their actions based on a risk to the mothers life, a health concern.

I'm pretty sure the abortion sub-thread has worn out it's welcome. If you want to start a new topic in the choice board, I'm game to keep chatting. PM me if you do.

[iverglas]

55. wearing out the welcome

Tough. The fact is that the members of the US Supreme Court who appear to be likely to jointly decide to strike down the legislation in issue here are right-wing scum, and that is a relevant fact. And that fact is demonstrated by their support of the legislation in issue in this subthread, which IS NOT what you keep misrepresenting/misunderstanding it to be.

If you are speaking from ignorance, you need to educate yourself. Start with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent:

http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/supreme/ginsburg_dissent.pdf

Keep in mind that the law's decision that partial birth abortions are medically unnecessary are based in part on the lack of evidence proving otherwise.

The fact that you don't see the absurdity in what you are saying is gobsmackingly unbelievable.

Would you write a sentence that started out: Keep in mind that the law's decision that the moon is made of green cheese ...?

Laws do not decide what is or is not medically necessary. More to the point (since laws don't decide anything at all), legislatures do not decide what is or is not medically necessary. Legislatures decide what the laws will be. They do not have jurisdiction to determine what is or is not medically unnecessary. Their authority extends to outlawing medical procedures (subject to constitutional requirements).

What is "medically necessary" is a matter of opinion, and the opinion of a legislature on the matter is supremely irrelevant to anything. They could outlaw a medical procedure because it was Tuesday. They don't need a reason to pass a law, and they don't need to have any opinion about anything other than what the law should be. They might need a reason to have a law upheld -- except, of course, when they have tame right-wing scum sitting on the bench.

This bench has approved what a previous bench very expressly said the legislative branch could NOT do:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

(You may need reminding that "partial-birth abortion", a nonsense term in itself, is a procedure, not an abortion at a specific stage of pregnancy. In particular, the actual technique in question is used in second-trimester, pre-hypothetical viability pregnancies.)

This bench has disregarded so many aspects of the decision in Roe v. Wade that one doesn't really know where to begin.

But those are somebody else's rights, and really just don't matter. And that decision says nothing at all about how committed the members of the bench in question are to protecting constitutional rights, and how little they will stop at to promote the interests of their right-wing masters/colleagues. And no one should be concerned that this is exactly what they appear to be fixing to do in Heller.

Let's just all pretend that it is not a great big right-wing machine that has brought this case to the court in the first place (sssh, no, we won't talk about who is paying the legal fees). Let's pretend this is about that We the People thing. The people, whose interests the right-wing scum have at heart. Not the people whose interests we all know they really have at heart. Lalalalala.

[iverglas]

25. try this one for size

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law that had criminalized homosexual sex in Texas.

Hmm. I wonder who was on which side?

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike down the Texas law, with five of the justices holding that it violated due process guarantees, and a sixth justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, finding that it violated equal protection guarantees. The majority opinion, which overrules Bowers v. Hardwick, covers similar laws in 12 other states. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion; Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined.

... Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a sharply worded dissent, which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined.

Do I need to reproduce that other list again, or might something be looking familiar?

Here's whom you're in bed with:

With this decision, Scalia concluded, the Court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."

Justice Thomas, in a separate short dissenting opinion, wrote that the law which the Court struck down was "uncommonly silly" (a phrase from Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut), but that he voted to uphold it as he could find "no general right of privacy" or relevant liberty in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

- The remedy of ceasing all recounts was approved by five to four. (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens opposed)
- Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties. ...
- The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature was rejected by six of the nine justices. (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter and Stevens opposed)

But somehow, I think y'all know that.

Now just how was that danged election "lost"?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Canada must be boring

For you to spend all this time worried about another countries internal politics.

David

[iverglas]

30. yes, isn't it a shame?

Just no right-wingery and gun-huggery to be toying with. Utopia can get dull.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. iverglas is just upholding the spirit of liberal interventionism.

...although she does not seem to like the results when the intervention is in a *northward* direction.

Oh well, sauce for the goose and all...

[iverglas]

47. ah, liberal interventionism

Yes, all that drooling south of the border as the efforts continue to get the fangs into our fresh water and health care system ... such liberality ...

Neoliberal, certainly.

[L1A1Rocker]

45. Please start you own thread

That contributes nothing to this one.

[iverglas]

48. sir yes sir

er ... no.

Not my problem if some don't want the right-wing ugliness of their emperors, which is visible to all in all its naked glory, being called by its name.

Ugly and right wing. As everybody knows, regardless of whether the emperors' toadies admit it.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L1A1Rocker]

62. ?????What????

Now you're just rambling incoherently.

[virginia mountainman]

10. Yea, I think we got it...

Did you see how HOSTILE the Brady Campaign legal representative was on CSPAN

He even made a dig on "Assault weapons" said that a finding FOR Heller, would be used like an assault weapon against other gun laws...

LOL They can't even stop with the hyperbole for 20 seconds.

[Boomer 50]

11. I'm leaning towards a 6-3 or stronger decision

Heller won this one though Gura tripped up a couple of times, it seemed like the Justices were laying out a map for him.

DC has definitely lost. We are about to enter a new era of civil right folks.

[jody]

12. CIVIL RIGHTS is correct!. RKBA is a basic civil right or liberty, something that gun-grabbers ignore

[virginia mountainman]

13. Gura did stumble...

But your right, seemed like the justices where definitely much more "friendly" to his argument...

But man...what a epic drilling they gave the DC's council.

[gorfle]

18. Yeah...

The one major stumble I felt was there was when they asked the guy why banning handguns was not a reasonable infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. He did not seem to have a good response to that.

But I agree - the justices seemed to be leading the pro-RKBA side, while they were slamming the opposition.

I think this is going to go in our favor. When will we have a decision? Will there be more discussions/testimony like today?

[davepc]

21. Decision this summer. June/July I think. no more arguments before the court

[L1A1Rocker]

46. I'm still holding out that Ginsberg will uphold the 2A.

[aikoaiko]

20. I'm hopeful the ban will be banned.

and it is based on the individual's right to keep and bear arms.


But the decision will be fascinating to read.


How long does it usually take and is their a deadline for a SCOTUS decision?

[Indy Lurker]

31. typically a decision by June

For more complex cases such as this one, where they are forging into new territory, it may take longer, like the end of June.

It's also possible, that there won't be an answer till October or later in the next session if they don't finish up by July. There is no actual deadline.

[Deep13]

38. FYI, Kennedy was pretty skeptical that the 2nd applies to individuals...

...when I talked to him about it in 1993. He was teaching a law school seminar in Austria at the time.

[bossy22]

39. the thing is

he seemed to hint towards believin and individual right in the Heller audio tapes

[Deep13]

40. I run into that all the time in the state court of appeals.

I might get a lot of skeptcal questions on oral argument and still win the case. I know that J.Kennedy is a proponent of the Socratic method because he used it on his studends. He may be sympathizing with anti-prohibition side or he may just be trying to draw out more information. It is hard to tell just from oral argument.

[bossy22]

41. true

i agree that questions also don't always reflect the justices view- the thing with Kennedy was taht he said he believed that the 2nd amendments first clause was there to show the importance of the militia but the second clause gave a right to bear arms...the way he worded it was as if he believed that this general right to bear arms was an individual right


if you want to see teh exact words download the transcript- its in the beggining when Mr. Dellinger is making his arguement to the court

here is what the wapo said

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the deciding vote on the divided court, was next. "In my view," he said, "there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."