April 18, 2007
AS IF GUNS WEREN'T ABOUT TO GET DEMOCRATS IN ENOUGH TROUBLE:
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 nature of their base requires congressional Democrats to try to deliver on gun control and abortion on demand. The nature of the electorate makes that a problem.
MORE:
Dem hopefuls mostly mum on gun issue (Sam Youngman, April 18, 2007, The Hill)
Democratic White House hopefuls yesterday struggled with whether they should embrace increased gun control measures following Monday’s horrific massacre at Virginia Tech.Campaigns offered nuanced responses to questions on the issue, indicating an effort to assuage their base without offending Red State America.
Ah, nuance.... Posted by Orrin Judd at April 18, 2007 10:10 AM
Little steps have resulted in so much progress. Those "conservatives" who think that the Dems and Republicans are indistinguishable are mind-bogglingly stupid.
Posted by: b at April 18, 2007 10:55 AMThe constitution IS what Tony says it is. Putting diplomats like Roberts and Alito on the court may already be paying off.
Posted by: jeff at April 18, 2007 12:07 PMConventional Wisdom will say this is good for the pro-abortion crowd because they can use this to rally the base and help elect more Dems who will prevent more conservative justices making these kinds of rulings.
Posted by: AWW at April 18, 2007 1:46 PMI am sure that someone, somewhere commenting here has tried tp explain how the dismanteling of the Kindermord regime must now proceed.
Roe v. Wade is not to be "overturned," it is to be narrowed, chipped away, a tiny cut at a time.
This is already well along. Contemportary Surpeme Court case law no longer treats baby-murder like a fundamnetal right, such as free speech, the mere chilling of which is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, laws protecting the unborn are now to be considered as separable. A tiny defect does not now result in throwing out an entire statutory scheme.
Watch out now for the future progress of ultra-sound counselling. There are many slices still to be carved from the carcass.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 18, 2007 3:35 PMI am sure that someone, somewhere commenting here has tried tp explain how the dismanteling of the Kindermord regime must now proceed.
Roe v. Wade is not to be "overturned," it is to be narrowed, chipped away, a tiny cut at a time.
This is already well along. Contemportary Surpeme Court case law no longer treats baby-murder like a fundamnetal right, such as free speech, the mere chilling of which is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, laws protecting the unborn are now to be considered as separable. A tiny defect does not now result in throwing out an entire statutory scheme.
Watch out now for the future progress of ultra-sound counselling. There are many slices still to be carved from the carcass.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 18, 2007 3:56 PMI am sure that someone, somewhere commenting here has tried tp explain how the dismanteling of the Kindermord regime must now proceed.
Roe v. Wade is not to be "overturned," it is to be narrowed, chipped away, a tiny cut at a time.
This is already well along. Contemportary Surpeme Court case law no longer treats baby-murder like a fundamnetal right, such as free speech, the mere chilling of which is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, laws protecting the unborn are now to be considered as separable. A tiny defect does not now result in throwing out an entire statutory scheme.
Watch out now for the future progress of ultra-sound counselling. There are many slices still to be carved from the carcass.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 18, 2007 3:56 PMI am sure that someone, somewhere commenting here has tried tp explain how the dismanteling of the Kindermord regime must now proceed.
Roe v. Wade is not to be "overturned," it is to be narrowed, chipped away, a tiny cut at a time.
This is already well along. Contemportary Surpeme Court case law no longer treats baby-murder like a fundamnetal right, such as free speech, the mere chilling of which is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, laws protecting the unborn are now to be considered as separable. A tiny defect does not now result in throwing out an entire statutory scheme.
Watch out now for the future progress of ultra-sound counselling. There are many slices still to be carved from the carcass.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 18, 2007 4:12 PM