Daily Kos

Court to hear case to reopen Roe V. Wade

by mickey

Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 09:53:16 PM PDT

Court to hear case to reopen Roe V. Wade

DALLAS (AP) -- A federal appeals court has agreed to hear a request from the woman formerly known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.
Norma McCorvey, who joined with anti-abortion activists nearly 10 years ago, is seeking to have the decision overturned, citing what she says is more than 30 years of evidence that abortions are psychologically harmful to women.

Its 2004, and this is still happening.  Unbelievable.

The article talks about how a federal district judge threw out the case last June saying too much time had elapsed( uh duh)  but the New Orleans based 5th circuit court of appeals has agreed to hear it.

Well this would be a  really interesting development, to see them overturn Roe v. Wade in an election year.Along with the civil union-gay marriage  stuff.

What really distresses me here is the injection of so much religious beliefs into our laws. I mean I'm a fairly spiritual person, but I am a firm advocate of separation of church and state. We dont live in a damn theocracy, and people should realize by now the dangers of such govts.

And although the lady in question is pressing the case based on 30 years of evidence of psychological damage to women, or so she says, the main thrust of the pro life movement has been on religious grounds.

So anybody know anything about the 5th US circuit court of appeals? Any chance they might actually overturn Roe v Wade?

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 16 comments

  •  They could (none / 0)

    A chance? Sure. They're a very conservative district. But odds are SCOTUS will knock it down.

    One silver lining in this is that it's going to motivate the troops on both sides.

    We're Doooooooooooomed!

    by maxomai on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 09:55:51 PM PDT

  •  SCOTUS? (none / 0)

    you mean the SCOTUS that Selected george bush into office? That SCOTUS? Oh, silly me, you were talking about the SCOTUS on the bench in 1973.

    Dude, get real, This issue IS going before the SUPREME court VERY SOON precisely BECAUSE of gwbush. This new orleans trial WILL go before it and possibly get overturned perhaps before election.  Why do you think TWO SCOTUSES put off retirement until AFTER the next election?  bushCo knew it couldn't put another judge on it and this court ALREADY installed them anyway.

    Repeal of the 14th ammendment can't be too far behind.

    by jackemoe on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:06:13 PM PDT

    •  SCOTUS and Roe (none / 0)

      The SCOTUS will uphold Roe, just as it did in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Back then, the court upheld Roe with a 5-4 margin. Stevens, Souter and Blackmun were joined by Kennedy and O'Connor. Today, Blackmun has been replaced by Breyer, a Clinton appointee. And White, who dissented in Casey, was replaced by Ginsburg, also a Clinton appointee.

      So as things stand, the vote would be (believe it or not) 6-3 against overturning Roe. While it's possible Kennedy could switch over to Rehnquist's side, I doubt O'Connor would at this point.

      Swing State Project: Campaign & Election News

      by DavidNYC on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:15:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Other Cases to Be Revisted in 2nd Bush Term (3.75 / 4)

    Scopes
    Dred-Scott
    People vs. Larry Flynt

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:08:59 PM PDT

    •  a bit of a problem... (none / 0)

      Scopes was never considered by SCOTUS or any federal court at all. Not to mention that Scopes lost so a reconsideration would be a good thing...

      </quibble>

      "Together we must rise to ever higher and higher platitudes" - Daley the Elder chanelling dubya

      by samiam on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 12:06:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh good (none / 0)

    The 5th circuit is the one that Bush appointed Pickering to back in Jan.I'm still looking for more info about it, who's on it and how conservative it really is.

    by mickey on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:10:08 PM PDT

    •  Precisely (none / 0)

      And "picked" in between sessions.

      14th Ammendment will be repealed shortly as well.  Roy Moore sez, The constitution is a Christian Document and our laws MUST be based on Christian morals, standards and values

      by jackemoe on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:21:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  God (none / 0)

    I love this country.

    by Mike S on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:15:34 PM PDT

  •  Can this happen? (none / 0)

    Obviously I'm no legal scholar. Can a federal appeals court overturn a SCOTUS ruling?

    It won't matter for long though. There's no way the Supreme Court repeals it, for two reasons. One, the votes are clearly there for Roe. Souter, Breyer, Bader-Ginsburg, Stevens, and O'Connor, are all considered solid supporters of Roe, and Kennedy is too, if a little less solid.

    If, somehow, Bush did have a majority, he wouldn't press the case anyway, because he would get nuked in a general election over it. Women would break 60% for the Democrats, Bush would get killed in the suburbs, and while he might lock up the South, he wouldn't even be able to compete in Michigan or Pennsylvania.

    "Politics is about doing well for people." Senator Paul Wellstone

    by leftist on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:22:12 PM PDT

  •  This story HAS to get out (none / 0)

    it MUST be made a wedge ISSUE AGAINST repugs and TIE it into the gay marriage issue. Over on Atrios, it's getting HUGE play.  Fight BACK against the repugs with their OWN phUCKING trash.

    by jackemoe on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:26:39 PM PDT

  •  On the gay issue (none / 0)

    With the homosexual population in America at roughly 25-30 million you're talking about the single largest block of voters on either side who, in my opinion, will resoundingly (95% or more) vote AGAINST bushCo come november EVEN IF this ammendment stuff disappeared tomorrow. That what it is. A wedge issue but they don't want to take it to task. Could you just see how Scotty squirmed on the issue?

    With the Gov. Perry story/allegations "coming out", repugs are going to wish they stopped this story before it started. But they're fanning it trying to wedge it then forget it once OBL is "caught" They KNOW that will be the ONLY thing talked about and the ammendment story just vanishes. Rove KNOWS Amurkins have 4 minute memories.  Oh look, it's a BREAST!

    The press it seems KNOWS this too. So what do they do? They lull you into this sense of bush can do no wrong and then bam, 11 months before the election Peter Novak is bashing dubya (look for him to turn up "missing" shortly) It's comical. Bushco KNOWS it loses in November. These are the actions of a DEAD AND DYING REGIME!

    by jackemoe on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:29:50 PM PDT

  •  Legally, I don't see it (none / 1)

    Not that this would stop the Rethus, but I don't see the legal grounds for McCorvey to reopen the case.  The Constitution and clearly stablished law demands that there be a "case or controversy" in order for federal courts to hear a case.  I don't see what the case is.  McCorvey's pregnancy is over, and so as far as I can tell, there is no relief or redress that she could be seeking.  

    I'm an attorney, but not a trial attorney.  Can anyone think of any precedent for a case being reopened?  I'm not talking about a precedent being overturned by a subsequent case, but the same case being reopened after the SCOTUS decided it.

    by gobo on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:40:16 PM PDT

  •  Um, standing, mootness (none / 0)

    This dog won't hunt.

    In order to bring a suit, one must have "standing."  In short form, this means one must be seeking relief for an actual harm that the court can provide.  Ms. McCorvey is not pregnant, nor is she directly effected by any abortion laws, thus no standing.

    Furthermore, a suit cannot be sustained on a past harm which is no longer correctable by the courts.  McCorvey's original abortion challenge became moot over 30 years ago, and is no longer grounds for a claim.

    I suppose McCorvey could claim standing based on the emotional distress caused by other people's abortions, but what a slippery slope that would be if people could challenge laws every time someone is bothered by one.  This Supreme Court is anything if not protective against an explosion of litigation, so even Scalia might be moved to deny Ms. McCorvey's claim.

    Ebo

    by captainebo on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 11:42:07 PM PDT

Permalink | 16 comments