Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

Board index : Music Talk : Rock/Pop

Author Message
 Post subject: nmr: supreme court
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:07 pm 
Offline
Post-Breakup Solo Project
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:05 pm
Posts: 3326
Location: boston
curious to hear viewpoints on the supreme court machinations currently underway over the constitutionality of later-term abortion bans.

the last paragraph of which goes something like this (regarding the gonzalez case):
Quote:
A telling moment occurs toward the end of Gartner's presentation when she allows herself to emote, to urge that this is a "very personal moral/religious decision" for a woman, often made "for very tragic reasons" over how she "wants her fetus to undergo demise." She notes that, "Congress has legislated that for a woman." The chief justice responds with the question: "If a woman can take into account the impact on the fetus" and its suffering, "why is that beyond the scope of things the Congress can take into account?"

It's a good question. But the best evidence I can offer for why neither the courts nor the Congress should be able to trump the mother's and doctor's preferences about the safest way to terminate her pregnancy is just this: After 120 minutes of exquisitely detailed medical inquiry, the justices have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they just are not doctors. They have tried valiantly to understand the medical testimony and to analyze the protocols. They struggle to weigh the risks of lethally injecting a fetus in the uterus. But that's just not why they went to law school.

By the same token, six congressional hearings and dozens of witnesses have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the United States Congress is not a body of doctors, either. Indeed, their ability to simply ignore inconvenient medical facts suggests that if they were doctors, they'd be rather rotten ones. If the justices are looking for the cleanest, easiest way out of this whole partial-birth abortion business, I would suggest that if institutional humility means anything at all, it means that when you can't understand the medicine, you stay out of the operating room. When you find yourself lacking the skills and experience to define the fine line between the intent and outcomes of similar medical procedures, or to weigh the hazards arising from each, perhaps the most prudent thing to do is to leave it to those who do.

_________________
"we're just slight clever, pants-wearing primates"


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:15 pm 
Offline
Go Platinum
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:37 pm
Posts: 7618
Location: Knee-deep and sinking
Yes, this is the first true test of the Bush-packed 'conservative' court.

I hope they step up and do the right thing, regardless of their personal political or religious beliefs.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:17 pm 
Offline
Self-Released 7-Inch
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 1137
Location: Los Angeles
mutty Wrote:
Yes, this is the first true test of the Bush-packed 'conservative' court.

I hope they step up and do the right thing, regardless of their personal political or religious beliefs.


It'll be interesting to see how Roberts and Alito decide, since both clearly think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but both also suggested in their hearings that they'd be hard-pressed to overturn it. This would be the first step.

_________________
top 5 of 2008:
1. Walkmen - You & Me
2. No Age - Nouns
3. Beach House - Devotion
4. TV on the Radio - Dear Science
5. Deerhoof - Offend Maggie


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:37 pm 
Offline
frostingspoon

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:07 pm
Posts: 12618
arguing that the SCOTUS should stay out of doing fact finding and making legislative-style decisions is about 40 years too late.

_________________
dumpjack: "I haven't liked anything he's done so far, but I'll still listen."


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:12 pm 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:13 am
Posts: 8264
Location: Norfolk, VA
Didn't every single doctor that testified in this proceeding say that there is never a time where partial-birth abortions are necessary? I had heard that before and heard it mentioned in passing on NPR again today. Am I remembering that incorrectly?


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:07 pm 
Offline
frostingspoon
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:38 pm
Posts: 10237
Location: Hill
rparis74 Wrote:
arguing that the SCOTUS should stay out of doing fact finding and making legislative-style decisions is about 40 years too late.


Seriously. If the justices' questions demonstrate that they're not doctors, those paragraphs demonstrate that the writer is not a lawyer (although I haven't checked that). I know that the argument is gaining popular momentum that courts should keep their hands off this issue because it's "just so personal," but if courts did that consistently, they wouldn't have much of a job.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

Board index : Music Talk : Rock/Pop


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Style by Midnight Phoenix & N.Design Studio
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.