This is NOT an abortion thread. Don't take it there!

[jimpeel]

With the passage and signing of the PBA law, how is it that judges have now taken it upon themselves to issue restraining orders on laws that have not yet been challenged through the litigation process?

This is not a local ordinance that is being challenged, it is a federal law that has yet to take effect or be challenged in a court of law?

At what point did judges take this power unto themselves by fiat?

 

[bountyhunter]

They have always had the power and use it whenever they choose. They may believe that the law conflicts with other statutes in existense, duplicates laws previously struck down by the high court, endangers the lives of women, is clearly unconstitutional, or other things.

The issuing of a restraining order is to hold a system in staus quo while the issue meanders through the courts. Ultimately, when the high court rules, that ruling over rides all other courts and the stays issued by the lower courts would become null if they are in conflict with the ruling.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I do not think that the courts can summarily issue a restraining order just because. Look at the campaign finance reform issue. Challenges were filed immediately and it stands until it is heard. The PBA is a law passed by congress, not an edict from the executive. Activist judges, methinks.

 

[jimpeel]

Basically, then, the actors who would perform the restricted activity would be protected from prosecution during the restraint process. If, after the courts have ruled, and the decision upheld the law as written, would those actors be immune to prosecution for their actions during the restraint process, or would they be liable after the decision negated the restraint?

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I believe that is the exact reason why it must be heard in a judicial forum: in order to either justify restraint or to let it stand until the hearing process is over. If the proper process is followed, then the persons performing the procedure have some advice. If a judge has restrained it legally, then I believe that the practitioners are protected. If the judge acted illegally, then there is no protection.:banghead:

 

[Don Galt]

This is good news... for far too long unconstitutional federal action (ban on homosexual marriage, gays in the military, abortion, restrictions of gun rights, etc. etc. etc.) have stood for decades with nothing being done.

I'd much rather that congress was actually composed of people who had heard of the constitution and so they only passed constitutional laws in the first place. But short of that, we need judicial rulings on these blatentyl unconstitutional laws.

Instead of them being in effect for 70 years with nothing being done, like the NFA.

Problem is, the vast majority of people want constitutional protection for their pet agenda, but want it taken away from everyone else.

And so every year the constitution gets weaker.

 

[jimpeel]

I don't understand how <insert abortion procedure here> can be considered Constitutional when the original decision was founded upon unfounded grounds. Even if it were, however, they specifically stated that the time frame for the procedure would not exceed the sixteen week mark. Eight-and-a-half months is a bit past that mark.

The reason the suits were filed was because of the lack of a provision for the "health of the mother". I cannot believe that if, during the procedure this law was crafted against, the head were to slip out of the mother she would die.

I also do not believe that if she were to deliver the child and it were to be adopted her health would suffer, either.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I do not believe that there is any right in the constitution for abortions, nor is there any right to prohibit abortions. The FEDERAL government must operate according to the constitution. Period. If there are any laws for or against, they must be at the state level. Morality is what we make it at the local level.

 

[Don Galt]

FMJ is right. The constitution grants NO RIGHTS to anybody. It only exists to explicitly limit the federal government, and give it some powers.

Therefore all these topics, and most dear to us, gun rights, are unconstitutional for the federal government to act on.

We don't need the constitution to give us the right to own guns.

 

[Standing Wolf]

At what point did judges take this power unto themselves by fiat?

The difference between today's leftist extremist judicial oligarchy and oligarchies of centuries past is the long dark robes.

 

[corncob]

I'm with Jimpeel...

I support the ban. And I think it is funny that the Democrats are seeing the"slippery slope method" of legislation they have used aginst gun owners all along being applied to thier favorite supposed "Constitutionally guaranteed right."

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I think that is the heart of the issue. Taking away gun rights has not been a slippery slope for liberals. It should have been an uphill battle because we started with an inalienable right to self-defence, backed up with the 2nd Amendement, just so it was clear. In the abortion argument, the libs took a right not enumerated in the constitution and made it into a right. If moral people try to define parameters to this "eter right", then those moral persons are creating a slippery slope. Taking away an enumerated right should be un UPHILL battle, not a slippery slope.

 

[whoami]

...the impression I had was not that the judges summarily issued 'restraining orders'....my impression was that groups that opposed the law prepared legal challenges to the law requesting a restraint ruling, and once the law was signed those requests were presented and ruled on, which is I believe the proper process of things.

I could be wrong, through.....

 

[corncob]

7.62,

"should" being the operative word....

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I just read a news report. The legal challenges began prior to the law being signed by GW. The Judge has apparently ruled on legal brifs from both sides. I have to give the judge the benfit of the doubt on this one since I was not there.

 

[bountyhunter]

The analysis of it last night stated that the federal law is identical to at least two dozen state laws which have already been struck down by the courts, at least once by the Supreme Court. That being the case, a federal court would be within it's power to put a stay against it until it was heard by the Supreme Court. The second point was that the law makes no provision or allowance for an abortion even if the mother will die as a result of the pregnancy, which lends an urgency to the court which could justify immediate action to prevent danger to the mothers posed by the law.



The upshot of the whole thing was that the federal law was passed in full knowledge that it was unconstitutional for the simple purpose of making it a political football in an election year. There will surely be a constitutional amendment proposed when this law is struck down, and the republicans will paint anybody who doesn't support it as a "baby killer". This is step in a multi-phase process to gradually rerstrict abortions until the right is taken away.

Welcome to politics.

 

[Destructo6]

The pro-abortions/right-to-choose folks went shopping for a sympathetic judge. They figured out the case rotation schedule and finagled the case before this particular fed judge.

From what I understand, his decision is not binding anywhere but within his jurisdiction, which is, iirc, Indiana. However, other jurisdictions will typically defer to the first action taken by a colleague.

 

[MeekandMild]

Like gun control its all about money and power. The Left is addicted to other people's money, whether to support NPR or PETA or VPC or whatever. With other people's money they are able to buy more judges and with more judges they are able to buy more power and with more power they are able to get more other peoples money.

 

[lissell]

One of these days some politician is going to realize that being pro-choice and pro-gun will give them a great deal of the middle line vote. There area lot of people who every year must make a tough decision when it comes to voting Democrat or republican. Do you value life saving surgery or the ability to protect yourself more?

Is it any wonder i have yet to register with a party?

 

[mountainclmbr]

Judicial activism will be the downfall of this experiment in Liberty. People have become too complacent and are not willing to fight for their rights. The Soviet Union has learned that Communism doesn't work. Western Europe is halfway down the road to Communism and the rest of the European countries are pig piling on. The United States is taking the left turn toward communism. In 20 years will the Soviet Union be the shining light of freedom in the world? It is starting here with the judges.

 

[jimpeel]

The second point was that the law makes no provision or allowance for an abortion even if the mother will die as a result of the pregnancy, which lends an urgency to the court which could justify immediate action to prevent danger to the mothers posed by the law.

But it is the method that repulses people. Taking a viable human being and doing something as despicable as what is done is inhuman. The pregnancy could be terminated with the life of both preserved.

I think that people here are correct that the same politicians who have whittled away at an enumerated right see their conferred right now being threatened.

 

[gunsmith]

P.N.A for the judge!

P.N.A
Post
Natal
Abortion

We need a new McCarthy for these extremist left jerks!
these extreme left wing judges have usurped the Constitution long enough!
Vote Neck Tie Party!

 

[BryanP]

We need a new McCarthy for these extremist left jerks!

And that is the kind of sentiment that scares the @#$ out of me.

 

[Marko Kloos]

P.N.A
Post
Natal
Abortion

We need a new McCarthy for these extremist left jerks!

And you don't think that viewpoint is a bit extremist?

 

[sw442642]

The RKBA exists for the possibility of another McCarthy Era. Despite what that twisted nutcase Ann Coulter raves about, we do not need an ideological police force.

If the Congress and President signed a bill authorizing segregation again or stating Chrisitianity was the state religion, would you mind if the courts acted against it quickly or waited till the first Black protesters were arrested or Jews tossed out of school for not praying to Jesus?