Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Scared yet Re: Roberts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
LeftNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:54 PM
Original message
Scared yet Re: Roberts
Got this from

Abortion cases loom on Supreme Court docket

If anyone is thinking that John Roberts' views about abortion rights are somehow a theoretical concern, it's time to think again. The Supreme Court has just released its schedule of cases for the first part of the next term. On Nov. 30, the court will take up one case involving abortion rights and two more involving the legal protections abortion providers can obtain from pro-life activists who try to shut them down.

In the first of the cases, Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a New Hampshire law that prohibits a minor from obtaining an abortion unless her parents are notified first. Many states have such laws, but New Hampshire's is different: It doesn't include an exception to the parental-notification requirement for cases in which the minor's health is at risk. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit invalidated the law, saying that it violated the "undue burden" test Sandra Day O'Connor established when she provided the fifth vote for upholding Roe vs. Wade in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. While O'Connor replacement's won't be able to overrule Roe out of the box -- Ruth Bader Ginsberg joined the court after Casey was decided, ensuring a 5-4 majority to uphold Roe even with O'Connor gone -- Ayotte would give Roberts and his colleagues on the right a chance to begin rolling back Roe's protections.

The other cases scheduled for Nov. 30 are Scheidler vs. NOW and Operation Rescue vs. NOW, two cases that concern the circumstances -- if any -- under which abortion providers can obtain injunctions prohibiting anti-abortion activists from interfering with their work through acts of violence and intimidation. Variations of this dispute have been before the court twice before -- once in 1994, then again in 2003 -- and NOW has won one and lost one.

With the questions getting narrower each time the case comes up, the justices may well be more closely divided than they were in 2004, when they ruled against NOW's position by an 8-1 vote. Roberts' vote could be crucial -- that is, if he doesn't feel the need to recuse himself from the cases altogether: In 1993, while he was working as a deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, Roberts wrote a brief taking Operation Rescue's side in a dispute with abortion providers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Worse and Worse
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:58 PM by AndyTiedye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Son of California Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
inevitably, the fight of over this nominee will be a fight over abortion.
60 something % of the country wants to keep it legal, if you look at the polls, Roberts was a really stupid choice politically speaking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. An op-ed here w more on Roberts and OPERATION RESCUE, etc
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 03:05 PM by emulatorloo


How mainstream, though, is Roberts' apparent support for the militant anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue? In 1993, a case was brought to the High Court by a group of abortion providers who accused Operation Rescue and six of its activists of violating a federal civil-rights statute by obstructing patients' access to women's health clinics.

In the case of Operation Rescue, the word "obstruction" was no metaphor; the health clinics referred to hard, physical reality. The group's activists, sometimes by the dozens, literally blocked, with their bodies, the entrances to women's health facilities. So menacing were Operation Rescue's tactics that other anti-abortion groups often kept their distance. (In fact, an Operation Rescue rally I attended in San Diego during the 1996 Republican National Convention was deemed enough of threat to bring out a small army of federal marshals.)

The kicker to Roberts' role on behalf of Operation Rescue (Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic) was that although the case did not involve the government, Roberts, deputy to then-Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, felt compelled to co-author an amicus curiae brief in support of an organization bent on terrorizing and demonizing pregnant women.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 22nd 2018, 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC