Victory for Life

by Sal on April 18, 2007

in Judicial Watch,Politics

The Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the federal ban on Partial-birth abortions.  Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were in the majority, while Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer dissented.  This is a major victory for the Pro-life cause as it bans a gruesome procedure which can only be described as barbaric.  It also is a victory for those who believe in an originalist view of the Constitution. 

This shows why elections matter.  Two of the five judges upholding the law were Bush-appointees, one of whom replaced the more liberal Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted in 2000 to strike down a partial-birth abortion ban.  One only hopes that either Stevens or Ginsburg retires this summer, giving Bush one more pick.  As it stands, President Bush’s greatest legacy may well be his shifting of the court back towards its proper role.  It’s not there yet, but it’s on its way. 

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Noonan April 18, 2007 at 11:39 am

A great landmark victory for the Pro-Life movement! Now all we need is a real Pro-Life conservative to carry the momentum forward into the 2008 Presidential race.


Noonan's wife April 18, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Its about time.


Mike April 18, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Excellent news indeed! Unfortunately, several other barabric procedures remain.

For those inclined to read the opinion, I suggest Thomas’s concurring opinion which Scalia joined. True to form, it’s only about 1 page but it is a good example of why Thomas is my favorite Justice. Roberts didn’t join Thomas and Scalia and that’s understandable. As Chief, he needs to remain diplomatic to keep Kennedy on board. As far as Alito is concerned, I’m a little troubled to see that he didn’t sign on to the Thomas concurring opinion.

Here’s a link to the opinion in PDF format:


Sal April 18, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I do like Thomas’ opinion, but I still am divided about whether he or Scalia is my favorite.

As far as Alito and Roberts, I’m not worried yet. The Robert’s theory (which Alito may very well subscribe to) is a narrow, incremental approach. The case at hand dealt specifically with a constitutional question that could easily be settled correctly based on current precident without necessarily examining the current precident. Since there was not another point of current precident that was at issue in this case, there was no need to revisit it. This is why I think a Robert’s court will chip away at Roe and Casey, rather than directly overturn it as Thomas and Scalia (and myself for that matter) would like to do.

All I can say is that we need to wait and see. Thomas’ concurrance can be disagreed to in an approach as to how the abortion jurisprudence should be dealt with by someone who still feels that Roe and Casey should be overturned.


Ryan April 18, 2007 at 2:55 pm

I heard Ruth “Bitty” Ginsberg today screaming about the “health of the mother” argument in her feeble dissent. Even the quite non-conservative former surgeon general C. Everett Koop said that with today’s technology there is no reasonable argument which supports the claim that a woman’s life could EVER be at risk because of a late-term pregnancy in the way Ruth Bitty describes it. It’s a moot argument in the face modern medicine which Bitty claims supports her point of view. They’re grasping at legal straws, but how is that different for Bitty and those three other clowns in robes (you could include Kennedy in face paint)!


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: