From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The abortion decision - not about abortion/morality (was Re: Stop the Carnage NOW!)
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 18 Jul 92 05:44:08 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <BrJn75.EGF@acsu.buffalo.edu> v026ltr5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty) writes:
> In article <mykes.094s@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>,
> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes...
> >Abortion is indeed a constitutionally guaranteed right - you could not be more
> >wrong in stating otherwise...
>
> This is opinion, not fact. The fact is, since abortion is never
> mentioned in the Constitution, it is perfectly valid to argue
> that no Constitutional protection should exist.
>

When the supreme court makes a ruling, it is no longer opinion, but
fact.  It becomes the law of the land.  The Supreme Court has ruled
3 times that abortion is a fundamental right and is protected by
the constitution.  I do not agree with their ruling, but that is
not something I care to get into anymore.  But reality is reality...

> >As well, the constitution is
> >clearly designed so the laws of the land should be equal throughout the
> >country (this is why judges look up precedent cases while making decisions).
>
> Even a first-year law student would know this is wrong. First of all,
> the Bill of Rights simply guarantees a minimum level of rights
> that the federal and state governments have to honor. There
> is no evidence to support (and reams of evidence to the contrary)
> the allegation that the federal constitution was designed to
> create conformity to a single ideal. Second, although judges
> do indeed consider precedent from other jurisdictions, they
> are never bound by law made outside their own. So while a federal
> judge in New York might consider a decision made by a California
> appeals judge, he is not bound by it as he is bound by a Supreme
> Court decision.
>

Article IV section 2 of the Constitution reads "The citizens of each
state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens
of the several states."

I never said anything about conforming to a single ideal.  Nor did I
state that judges are BOUND by previous decisions outside their
jurisdiction.  I have stated several times (and here again :) that
the Supreme Court IS bound by its earlier decisions.  One fact of
the Casey v. PA case that I found very interesting was that the
Stare Decisis element of the pro-abortion argument was the strongest,
yet this was totally unexpected by the attorney who argued the case.
I did point out that the original poster was looking only at the Bill
of Rights and ignoring the main body of the Constitution itself.

And a point that I will be repeatedly bringing up is that even BEFORE
Roe was legislated by the court, abortion WAS LEGAL.  And the above
quoted part of the Constitution guaranteed that as long as abortion
is legal in any state, a woman has the ability to go to that state
and get an abortion subject to the laws of that state.

I would submit then, that if the Supreme Court vote on whether abortion
should be legal at all (which won 5-4) were the opposite, that people
who are of any of the 4 abortion positions would be forced to use their
vote for local government that would enact their agenda.

> >You failed to point out that the CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court, in Casey v. PA,
> >found that states which prohibit abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy
> >are still, and always will be, in violation of the 14th Amendment.
>
> This is silly. Nobody can assure it will ALWAYS be that way.
>

The reaffirmation of the funamental and constitutional right to choose
only enhances the Stare Decisis argument.  And when it comes to precedent,
the last 4 justices nominated (including Bork) indicated that whether they
personally agreed with the decisions, they would interpret the law with
precedence getting the most significant consideration.

As I see it, in the Casey v PA ruling, the pro-choice position won and
the pro-abortion side lost.  The pro-life side also lost (but gained),
but the anti-abortion side almost won.  As I see it, in the Roe v Wade
ruling, the pro-abortion side won big and everyone else lost big.

What the justices have said and written in their opinions indicates to me
that adding two ex-operation rescue lawyers as justices wouldn't end up
in the elimination of the right to choose.  What would be considered
reasonable restrictions by the court would be liberalized (small 'l'),
though.  And this would be devastating to the pro-abortion position.

> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> {                                            | Matthew P. Mason        }
> {          are 'friends' electric?           | SUNY Buffalo Law School }
> {                                            | v026ltr5@ubvms.bitnet   }
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

--
Author of Amiga GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle,
and Genesis Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh