Activist Judge Inserts Herself Into State Abortion Legislation

DamnYankee

DamnYankee

Loyal to the end
A federal judge in Greensboro blocked part of the state's new abortion law Tuesday, ruling providers do not have to place an ultrasound image next to a pregnant woman so she can view it, nor do they have to describe its features and offer her the chance to listen to the heartbeat.
Click to expand...
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/201...judge-blocks-part-of-the-states-a-ar-1538894/

Three issues here:
1. This is a state's right issue. The federal government has no authority to regulate this legislation.
2. This is a legislative issue. A judge has no authority to subvert the legislature unless its actions are unconstitutional.
3. This is a case where liberals want to keep specific and scientific information away from the mother that could influence her decision about an abortion.
 
Because I'm more concerned that the judge doesn't have the authority, not her excuses for a legal argument.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then you obviously don't understand constitutional law like you think you do.
Click to expand...
No, just that my understanding is different than yours. I believe in reading the Constitution as plain English and if there is a question of interpretation then look at the intent of the men who wrote it, before they signed it. You apparently look at it differently, perhaps taking legal precedence into account. I think that legal precedence, unless it is clearly founded in the original language is bullshit. Most precedent is based on interpretation of what the founders did after the Constitution became law, or worse, what other folks did later on.

No other professional field accepts 'because we did it this way before' as a basis to make a current decision. Its only the legal profession that does this.
 
DamnYankee said:
No, just that my understanding is different than yours. I believe in reading the Constitution as plain English and if there is a question of interpretation then look at the intent of the men who wrote it, before they signed it. You apparently look at it differently, perhaps taking legal precedence into account. I think that legal precedence, unless it is clearly founded in the original language is bullshit. Most precedent is based on interpretation of what the founders did after the Constitution became law, or worse, what other folks did later on.

No other professional field accepts 'because we did it this way before' as a basis to make a current decision. Its only the legal profession that does this.
Click to expand...

I believe you full well know what my understanding of the constitution is. If you believed in the founders intent, you wouldn't be able to find half the shit in there that you claim you see in there.
 
You obviously have a higher opinion of yourself than I do of you to think that I know what your views are.

Again, my understanding of the Constitution is first based on a plain-English reading of it.
 
Her stated reason is provided in the link:
North Carolina officials "have not articulated how the speech-and-display requirements address the stated concern in reducing compelled abortions, and none is immediately apparent," the judge wrote in a preliminary injunction.
Click to expand...

She doesn't have the authority to decide if the requirements would or would not meet the stated goal or reducing abortions.
 
DamnYankee said:
Her stated reason is provided in the link:


She doesn't have the authority to decide if the requirements would or would not meet the stated goal or reducing abortions.
Click to expand...

she does have the authority to determine if the law in question is narrowly tailored enough to meet the criteria of constitutionality in restricting or abridging a right.
 
doubtful, but just to help you out a little bit.

1) it's the states objective to reduce the amount of abortions. something I would consider to be within their constitutional authority

2) since abortion has been deemed a constitutional right, any such laws that infringe on that right must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective.

3) according to the judges temporary injunction, "North Carolina officials "have not articulated how the speech-and-display requirements address the stated concern in reducing compelled abortions, and none is immediately apparent,"

4) so, in conclusion, the judge is exercising her authority to protect constitutional rights by requiring the state to show a compelling government interest in reducing abortions is narrowly tailored by producing some evidence.

pretty basic constitutional law.

that wasn't too difficult for you, was it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top