Time to stop playing the Susan Collins game
They only need four Republicans to break ranks with Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell. This time, to set ground rules for a serious but fair Senate trial for Trump, following his impeachment by the House of Representatives-- and not the kind of rigged, sham trial McConnell's trying to set up in cahoots with the White House. One day, Susan Collins tells reporters she'sHere we go again. It's crunch time. Senate Democrats are united. They only need four Republicans to break ranks with Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell.
Whether there is now a majority on the high court to overturn Roe is unknowable at this point. But four members of the court dissented, and it seems inevitable that the full court will review the lower court decision approving the Louisiana law, which seems to conflict with a Supreme Court decision
How overturning Roe would work. I’m quite confident that Kavanaugh is a vote to overturn Roe Politically, Siegel added, overturning Roe immediately could mobilize progressives for the 2020 Part of the problem is that Roe v. Wade is overwhelmingly popular — all the more reason to avoid saying
Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.
Two hundred–plus members of Congress, all but two of them Republicans, have signed
Did the officials get the spot right on the Packers’ game-clinching 1st down?
Jimmy Graham’s 9-yard catch from Aaron Rodgers was ruled a first down, even after officials gave it a lengthy review.It was reviewed for several minutes to see if Graham got the first down:
Jim Bopp of the National Right to Life Committee believes that we do not currently have a willing U.S. Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade. He believes that we only have one vote in our favor. Absent divine intervention, Bopp says we must use our human reason to figure out the best course
There’s no reason to think that the current court would change its mind: “The antiabortion activists have always wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade,” notes At present, the Supreme Court has five justices who would vote to uphold Roe — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony
A lot of the brief consists of the boring legal argumentation you’d probably expect. It encourages the Court to find that the plaintiffs lack standing or, failing that, to uphold the Louisiana law as “distinguishable” from the invalidated Texas one. But then it suggests the Court give some thought to reworking or overruling the decisions, most prominently Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that treat abortion as a constitutional right to begin with. Why? The answer is a little unexpected: The right to abortion just isn’t “workable,” as evidenced by the courts’ failure to create a stable and logical system for determining which abortion restrictions are constitutional and which are not.
Unsurprisingly, the brief has divided legal commentators. Mark Joseph Stern of Slatea “trick” and a “lie” that may well give conservative justices, in particular Brett Kavanaugh, the excuse they need to depart from judicial precedents that have actually worked just fine for nearly half a century. NR’s own Ramesh Ponnuru, writing at Bloomberg View, that “could eventually prove decisive,” perhaps in a future case rather than in June Medical Services itself.
Georgia Death Row inmate Michael Wade Nance asks for firing squad over lethal injection
A Death Row inmate is ready to bite the bullet. Convicted murdered Michael Wade Nance is asking to be executed by firing squad rather than lethal injection, arguing it would cause “excruciating pain” due to a vein problem. Nance was convicted of malice murder and other crimes for the 1993 Georgia murder of Gabor Baologh after robbing a bank, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “There is an alternative method of execution that is feasible and readily implemented which will significantly reduce or eliminate the substantial risk of severe pain to Mr. Nance,” reads the lawsuit.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court said that while the right to have an abortion was "fundamental" it was not A version of this an analysis; news analysis appears in print on January 24, 1992, on Page A00012 of the National edition with the headline: Top Court Could Overturn Roe Without Best Sellers. By the Book.
But Shepherd devotes much of the opinion to arguments that the Supreme Court should consider overturning Roe . The viability threshold “has proven unsatisfactory because it gives too little consideration to the ‘substantial state interest in potential life throughout pregnancy,’ ” the opinion reads.
I see this a bit differently. It is difficult to create workable standards in this area, but that doesn’t really distinguish abortion from countless other areas in which the Court operates, and I’m not sure how big of a role it will or should play in Roe‘s demise. If there really were a constitutional right to abortion, or if the core of Roe were worth upholding as precedent for other reasons, such as maintaining the stability of the law, it would be worth continuing to develop and improve the rules rather than ending judicial enforcement of the abortion right itself. (The central guideline since 1992 has been that states can’t place an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions, a vague standard that leaves plenty of room for refinement.) We who want to see the end of Roe should thus not put too many eggs in the “workability” basket, and there are plenty of arguments worth emphasizing more.
Today in History: January 13
Today in History: January 13
While many pundits have opined that Roe vs Wade is sure to be overturned , I believe it will survive and remain the law of the land for several reasons . A significant number of abortions performed are due to serious and often life threatening illnesses, as well as for serious congenital fetal anomalies, incest
Roe probably wouldn’t be overturned in the next four years, and maybe never. But depending on how many justices Trump gets to appoint, and depending on But even then, Rikelman said, the Court still has a five-member majority that clearly would not vote to overturn Roe : the four liberal justices and
To be clear, there is a workability problem, at least regarding the Court’s approach to the abortion issue up until now. Here’s the GOP brief describing the Court’s various ping-pong moves over the years:
The Court struck down regulations in Akron and Thornburgh later approved in Casey. The Court identified two state interests for abortion regulations in Roe but recognized more in Gonzales. It struck down limits on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg v. Carhart later approved in Gonzales. It rejected facial challenges in Gonzales it then resurrected, sua sponte, in Hellerstedt. The Court has retreated from Roe in at least four cases — Harris, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Casey, and Gonzales — recalibrating the standard of review and giving States more deference to enact health and safety regulations and partial prohibitions.
These flip-flops, as well as the conflicting abortion decisions that routinely issue from the lower courts as they try to parse confusing Supreme Court precedents, show the difficulty of separating limits on a right that are allowed from limits that are not allowed — especially when different jurists have different ideological commitments regarding the right, and when many states are willing to get creative to limit the right any way they can. But this problem is present to some degree with any right, whether guaranteed by the Constitution, a statute, or a judicial precedent, and we rarely see it as a reason to rethink whether courts should enforce such rights at all.
House Democrats overturn DeVos on student loan forgiveness, but change unlikely to pass Senate
The Democrat-controlled House overturned rules from Betsy DeVos on student loan forgiveness. Republicans in the Senate are unlikely to agree.The move to overturn DeVos' rules is unlikely to pass the GOP-controlled Senate. The White House suggested Trump is likely to veto the bill if it does.
During an interview on "60 Minutes," President-elect Donald Trump said he would be looking to appoint a Supreme Court justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Attacks on Roe v. Wade won't succeed overnight, but state legislatures are pursuing ways to re-criminalize abortion. The incoming Trump-Pence administration has promised to do everything in its power to overturn the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion on January
There’s no argument in the brief that abortion rights are any harder for courts to manage than, say, gun rights, another area where the Court’s standards are still young and evolving and judges disagree on whether the right should exist at all. And while the Court has wavered on the ways in which states may restrict abortion on the margins, it has been rock-solid on the core question: whether a woman has a right to abort her child in the early months of pregnancy, which is when the vast majority of abortions occur.
So while it is indeed challenging to create workable rules for abortion regulations, I’d call that the fourth-best reason to strike at the heart of Roe itself. My top three have to do with whether the decision was correct to begin with and, if not, other concerns bearing on whether it’s the kind of precedent the courts should respect anyway.
First, there really is nothing in the Constitution stopping states from regulating abortion as they see fit, so this is not an issue for the federal courts to resolve permanently the way they tried to in Roe. Second, this decision to override voters’ policy preferences has been highly consequential — and horrific, to those of us who oppose abortion — as Roe has facilitated the deaths of millions of helpless babies in jurisdictions that would have strictly limited the practice if they’d been allowed to. Third, unlike many other un-originalist precedents from decades past, Roe has failed to settle into place as a widely accepted and politically unremarkable part of our legal landscape, and it generates vigorous protests nearly 50 years after it was decided. States and even judges on the lower courts are pushing the boundaries on abortion laws to this day.
Trump’s Impeachment Brief Is a Howl of Rage
The document released by the president’s lawyers reads more like the scream of a wounded animal than a traditional legal filing.Over the weekend, as the Senate prepared for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the newly appointed House impeachment managers and the president’s newly appointed legal team both filed their initial legal briefs.
Here are five reasons I believe that “ Roe ” should be overturned . But that was not true. McCorvey just wanted an abortion, and her attorney falsely promised to help her get one, knowing full well it could not happen in time (since cases that go up to the Supreme Court take time to adjudicate).
Here are five reasons I believe that Roe should be overturned . McCorvey just wanted an abortion, and her attorney falsely promised to help her get one, knowing full well it could not happen in time Roe is part of a recent tradition that views the Constitution as a living document subject to change
You might disagree with my ranking. Heck, I stole three of the four elements from, and he did: “1. How wrong was it? . . . 2. How well accepted has it been? . . . 3. Most important to me, does it permit me to function as a lawyer, or does it make me a legislator?” (Emphasis mine.) In explaining the third part, Scalia specifically called out the “undue burden” standard for abortion laws.
But however we order these various tests, Roe flunks all of them. Combined, they amount to an incredibly powerful case for overruling a bad precedent that has lasted too long, claimed too many lives, taken too much power from the states, and sown too much discord by denying abortion opponents a fair chance to make a difference through the legislative process. Above all, the Court should end it, and soon — no matter which reasons it finds most compelling.
Federal government backs Ohio on Down syndrome abortion law .
The federal government took Ohio's side Tuesday in a lawsuit over the state law prohibiting doctors from performing abortions based on a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome. The Justice Department said in a filing that “nothing in Ohio's law creates a substantial obstacle to women obtaining an abortion, and nothing in the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent requires States to authorize medical providers to participate in abortions the providers know are based on Down syndrome." Government attorneys argue the bill doesn't outlaw any abortions, it only places restrictions on providers.The full 6th U.S.