LeMod Pol

U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act unconstitutional.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press


NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
second such ruling in three months -- even though he
called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''

U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
ban for not containing an exception to protect a
woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
of abortion.

The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
punctured or crushed.

Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
decision after decision striking these bans, saying
they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
will finally stop.''

On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.

The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
the Supreme Court.

''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.

The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.

At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.

In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
which any women could potentially benefit from it.''

At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
uncivilized medical procedure.''

Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
legal hope for the law's supporters.

''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
very transparent in his articulation of his personal
views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
*
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

Krusty

LeMod Pol <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message news:<412F3B8A.8F82D81F@igs.net>...
> U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
> federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
> Act unconstitutional.
> By LARRY NEUMEISTER
> Associated Press
>
>
> NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
> Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
> second such ruling in three months -- even though he
> called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''


Which I guess just goes to show you why them-thar liberal, actvist
judges aren't doctors, eh?

Jackass, I'm surprised you haven't bleated about this yet? (You
can use the liberal, activist bit.......)

Roger

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
>
> "... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
> protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
> has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
> particular types of abortion."
>
> U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
> federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
> Act unconstitutional.
> By LARRY NEUMEISTER

But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing Republicans
in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in the
campaign.

>
>
> NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
> Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
> second such ruling in three months -- even though he
> called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
>
> U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
> federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
> challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
> ban for not containing an exception to protect a
> woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
> clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
> of abortion.
>
> The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
> to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
> partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
> partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
> punctured or crushed.
>
> Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
> Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
> ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
> decision after decision striking these bans, saying
> they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
> will finally stop.''
>
> On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
> Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
> it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
> judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
> judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
>
> The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
> the Supreme Court.
>
> ''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
> now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
> we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
>
> The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
> by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
> from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
> administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
> and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
>
> At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
> 1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
> affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
> would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
>
> In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
> the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
> said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
> gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
> a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
> which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
>
> At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
> himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
> technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
> uncivilized medical procedure.''
>
> Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
> 1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
> legal hope for the law's supporters.
>
> ''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
> very transparent in his articulation of his personal
> views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
> Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
> ``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
>
> Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
> --
> LP
> In politics, moderation is the best policy

Johnny

Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
unconstitutional or not.
That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!
Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted by
elected representation.
The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or not is
ILLEGAL.
The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.

I am sick of the Lower Courts adopting this pick and choose attitude of
which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to deem as
unconstitutional or unenforceable. We should oust them from the benches they
sit on in the interest of serving the people of our nation.
IMO, lower court judges are WIMPS!

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:412F3B8A.8F82D81F@igs.net...
>
>
> U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
> federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
> Act unconstitutional.
> By LARRY NEUMEISTER
> Associated Press
>
>
> NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
> Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
> second such ruling in three months -- even though he
> called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
>
> U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
> federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
> challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
> ban for not containing an exception to protect a
> woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
> clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
> of abortion.
>
> The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
> to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
> partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
> partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
> punctured or crushed.
>
> Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
> Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
> ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
> decision after decision striking these bans, saying
> they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
> will finally stop.''
>
> On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
> Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
> it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
> judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
> judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
>
> The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
> the Supreme Court.
>
> ''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
> now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
> we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
>
> The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
> by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
> from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
> administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
> and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
>
> At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
> 1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
> affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
> would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
>
> In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
> the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
> said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
> gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
> a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
> which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
>
> At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
> himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
> technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
> uncivilized medical procedure.''
>
> Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
> 1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
> legal hope for the law's supporters.
>
> ''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
> very transparent in his articulation of his personal
> views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
> Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
> ``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
>
> Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
> --
> LP
> In politics, moderation is the best policy

Johnny

"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m...
> "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
> news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
> >
> > "... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
> > protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
> > has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
> > particular types of abortion."
> >
> > U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
> > federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
> > Act unconstitutional.
> > By LARRY NEUMEISTER
>
> But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
Republicans
> in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in the
> campaign.

That was not the law's purpose, liar.
The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison any
person who trasngressed the law for two years.
Read the LAW, STUPID!

The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the President.
The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule according
to law.

>
> >
> >
> > NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
> > Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
> > second such ruling in three months -- even though he
> > called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
> >
> > U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
> > federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
> > challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
> > ban for not containing an exception to protect a
> > woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
> > clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
> > of abortion.
> >
> > The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
> > to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
> > partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
> > partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
> > punctured or crushed.
> >
> > Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
> > Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
> > ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
> > decision after decision striking these bans, saying
> > they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
> > will finally stop.''
> >
> > On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
> > Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
> > it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
> > judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
> > judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
> >
> > The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
> > the Supreme Court.
> >
> > ''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
> > now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
> > we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
> >
> > The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
> > by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
> > from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
> > administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
> > and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
> >
> > At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
> > 1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
> > affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
> > would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
> >
> > In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
> > the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
> > said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
> > gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
> > a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
> > which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
> >
> > At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
> > himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
> > technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
> > uncivilized medical procedure.''
> >
> > Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
> > 1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
> > legal hope for the law's supporters.
> >
> > ''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
> > very transparent in his articulation of his personal
> > views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
> > Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
> > ``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
> >
> > Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
> > --
> > LP
> > In politics, moderation is the best policy
>
>

David

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:10:10 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

>Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
>unconstitutional or not.
>That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!
>Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted by
>elected representation.
>The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or not is
>ILLEGAL.
>The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.

What a crock. First thing, Federal cases don't start in the Supreme
Court they start in District Courts then go to the Courts of Appeals,
then maybe, maybe they go to the Supreme Court.

At each level the judge(s) apply constitutional law precedent to the
case and make a ruling.

I'm sorry if that seems inconvenient for you, but that's the way it
works. Stop reading that right wing wacko crap.

>I am sick of the Lower Courts adopting this pick and choose attitude of
>which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to deem as
>unconstitutional or unenforceable. We should oust them from the benches they
>sit on in the interest of serving the people of our nation.
>IMO, lower court judges are WIMPS!

IMO, you are a MORON!

[...]
-------------------------
http://www.rcrc.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.au.org/
http://www.cmep.org/

Roger

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m...
> > "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
> > news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
> > >
> > > "... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
> > > protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
> > > has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
> > > particular types of abortion."
> > >
> > > U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
> > > federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
> > > Act unconstitutional.
> > > By LARRY NEUMEISTER
> >
> > But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
> Republicans
> > in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in the
> > campaign.
>
> That was not the law's purpose, liar.
> The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison
any
> person who trasngressed the law for two years.
> Read the LAW, STUPID!

Never hear of "reading between the lines?"

Never heard of subtext?

How naive. Grow up.

>
> The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the President.
> The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule according
> to law.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Good sheep.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
> > > Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
> > > second such ruling in three months -- even though he
> > > called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
> > >
> > > U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
> > > federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
> > > challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
> > > ban for not containing an exception to protect a
> > > woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
> > > clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
> > > of abortion.
> > >
> > > The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
> > > to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
> > > partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
> > > partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
> > > punctured or crushed.
> > >
> > > Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
> > > Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
> > > ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
> > > decision after decision striking these bans, saying
> > > they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
> > > will finally stop.''
> > >
> > > On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
> > > Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
> > > it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
> > > judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
> > > judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
> > >
> > > The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
> > > the Supreme Court.
> > >
> > > ''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
> > > now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
> > > we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
> > >
> > > The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
> > > by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
> > > from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
> > > administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
> > > and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
> > >
> > > At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
> > > 1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
> > > affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
> > > would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
> > >
> > > In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
> > > the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
> > > said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
> > > gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
> > > a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
> > > which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
> > >
> > > At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
> > > himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
> > > technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
> > > uncivilized medical procedure.''
> > >
> > > Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
> > > 1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
> > > legal hope for the law's supporters.
> > >
> > > ''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
> > > very transparent in his articulation of his personal
> > > views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
> > > Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
> > > ``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
> > >
> > > Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
> > > --
> > > LP
> > > In politics, moderation is the best policy
> >
> >
>
>

Frank Dwyer

Johnny wrote:
>
> Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
> unconstitutional or not.
> That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme
Court, AND in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish

> Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted by
> elected representation.
> The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or not is
> ILLEGAL.
> The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme
Court, AND in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish.

> I am sick of the Lower Courts adopting this pick and choose attitude of
> which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to deem as
> unconstitutional or unenforceable. We should oust them from the benches they
> sit on in the interest of serving the people of our nation.
> IMO, lower court judges are WIMPS!

Johnny

"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l7%Xc.13251$6m6.9395@newssvr29.news.prodigy.c om...
> "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net. ..
> >
> > "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m...
> > > "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
> > > news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
> > > >
> > > > "... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
> > > > protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
> > > > has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
> > > > particular types of abortion."
> > > >
> > > > U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
> > > > federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
> > > > Act unconstitutional.
> > > > By LARRY NEUMEISTER
> > >
> > > But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
> > Republicans
> > > in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in
the
> > > campaign.
> >
> > That was not the law's purpose, liar.
> > The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison
> any
> > person who trasngressed the law for two years.
> > Read the LAW, STUPID!
>
> Never hear of "reading between the lines?"
>

You mean the invisible words that are not even there?
STUPID! ILLEGAL!

> Never heard of subtext?
>
> How naive. Grow up.
>

No. Naive is to assume that people actually respect people who break the law
or that they respect judges who are insubordinate to our leaders.

> >
> > The purpose of the law was written into LAW and made law by the
President.
> > The lower court judges are neglecting the duty as judges to rule
according
> > to law.
>
> Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
>
> Good sheep.
>
> Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
>

You are baaaaaaing?
Your lack of respect for sheep is another reason you will die.
Shepherds kill wolves when they need to.
Shepherds throw rocks at wolves.
Shepherds will kill enemies of the sheep.
It happens.

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth
> > > > Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the
> > > > second such ruling in three months -- even though he
> > > > called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.''
> > > >
> > > > U.S. District Judge Richard Casey -- one of three
> > > > federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous
> > > > challenges to the law earlier this year -- faulted the
> > > > ban for not containing an exception to protect a
> > > > woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made
> > > > clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types
> > > > of abortion.
> > > >
> > > > The law, signed in November, banned a procedure known
> > > > to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called
> > > > partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetes is
> > > > partially removed from the womb, and the skull is
> > > > punctured or crushed.
> > > >
> > > > Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive
> > > > Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the
> > > > ruling: ``We can only hope as we have decision after
> > > > decision after decision striking these bans, saying
> > > > they endanger women's health, that the legislatures
> > > > will finally stop.''
> > > >
> > > > On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San
> > > > Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying
> > > > it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A
> > > > judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three
> > > > judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
> > > >
> > > > The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to
> > > > the Supreme Court.
> > > >
> > > > ''We are in the process of the appeal of these issues
> > > > now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where
> > > > we're going,'' Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
> > > >
> > > > The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen
> > > > by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure
> > > > from the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade. But the Bush
> > > > administration has argued that the procedure is cruel
> > > > and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
> > > >
> > > > At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of
> > > > 1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would
> > > > affect about 130,000. Some observers suggest the number
> > > > would be much lower -- 2,200 to 5,000.
> > > >
> > > > In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that
> > > > the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He
> > > > said the Supreme Court had made it clear that ``this
> > > > gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists
> > > > a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in
> > > > which any women could potentially benefit from it.''
> > > >
> > > > At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before
> > > > himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion
> > > > technique to be a ``gruesome, brutal, barbaric and
> > > > uncivilized medical procedure.''
> > > >
> > > > Casey, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton in
> > > > 1997, was considered by some observers to be the best
> > > > legal hope for the law's supporters.
> > > >
> > > > ''The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and
> > > > very transparent in his articulation of his personal
> > > > views on the matter,'' said Gloria Feldt, president of
> > > > Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
> > > > ``Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law.''
> > > >
> > > > Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder
> > > > --
> > > > LP
> > > > In politics, moderation is the best policy
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Johnny

"David" <f15096@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:k3u0j0dvmlgo2gnjuukk7ivlfa8mjhlkiu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:10:10 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
> >unconstitutional or not.
> >That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!
> >Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted by
> >elected representation.
> >The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or not
is
> >ILLEGAL.
> >The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.
>
> What a crock. First thing, Federal cases don't start in the Supreme
> Court they start in District Courts then go to the Courts of Appeals,
> then maybe, maybe they go to the Supreme Court.

I know. I have filed a case before.
Why did they not say the law in my case was unconstituional?, and do not ask
me for any details.
Why did they call this one unconstitutional and not the law which I told
them is unconstitutional?

>
> At each level the judge(s) apply constitutional law precedent to the
> case and make a ruling.

They didn't in my case, you stupid ignorant wimpy fool.

>
> I'm sorry if that seems inconvenient for you, but that's the way it
> works. Stop reading that right wing wacko crap.
>

It is inconvenient for me which means I am going to smash your God Damed
head if I get the chance and you still rebell (threaten my life or anyone
else's life) against me too much.

> >I am sick of the Lower Courts adopting this pick and choose attitude of
> >which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to deem as
> >unconstitutional or unenforceable. We should oust them from the benches
they
> >sit on in the interest of serving the people of our nation.
> >IMO, lower court judges are WIMPS!
>
> IMO, you are a MORON!
>

Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me other than that it is to be
eliminated.

Commondreams?

What a god damned joke you are.
You are not standing for the common good.

Johnny

"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:41307FB2.7EC6BEC7@citlink.net...
> Johnny wrote:
> >
> > Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
> > unconstitutional or not.
> > That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!
>
> The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme
> Court, AND in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
> ordain and establish
>
> > Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted by
> > elected representation.
> > The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or not
is
> > ILLEGAL.
> > The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.
>
> The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme
> Court, AND in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
> ordain and establish.

They are not solid in their practice.
They are not in agreement nationwide, they are not representative.
They are very much acting outside the law.

>
> > I am sick of the Lower Courts adopting this pick and choose attitude of
> > which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to deem as
> > unconstitutional or unenforceable. We should oust them from the benches
they
> > sit on in the interest of serving the people of our nation.
> > IMO, lower court judges are WIMPS!

LeMod Pol

Johnny wrote:
>
> Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
> unconstitutional or not.
> That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!
> Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted by
> elected representation.
> The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or not is
> ILLEGAL.
> The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.
>
> I am sick of the Lower Courts adopting this pick and choose attitude of
> which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to deem as
> unconstitutional or unenforceable. We should oust them from the benches they
> sit on in the interest of serving the people of our nation.
> IMO, lower court judges are WIMPS!

Suggest you go back to law school, Johnny!!
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

LeMod Pol

David wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:10:10 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
> >unconstitutional or not.
> >That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!
> >Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted by
> >elected representation.
> >The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or not is
> >ILLEGAL.
> >The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.
>
> What a crock. First thing, Federal cases don't start in the Supreme
> Court they start in District Courts then go to the Courts of Appeals,
> then maybe, maybe they go to the Supreme Court.
>
> At each level the judge(s) apply constitutional law precedent to the
> case and make a ruling.
>
> I'm sorry if that seems inconvenient for you, but that's the way it
> works. Stop reading that right wing wacko crap.
>
> >I am sick of the Lower Courts adopting this pick and choose attitude of
> >which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to deem as
> >unconstitutional or unenforceable. We should oust them from the benches they
> >sit on in the interest of serving the people of our nation.
> >IMO, lower court judges are WIMPS!
>
> IMO, you are a MORON!

Certainly no law school would admit him.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

LeMod Pol

Johnny wrote:
>
> "David" <f15096@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:k3u0j0dvmlgo2gnjuukk7ivlfa8mjhlkiu@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:10:10 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
> > >unconstitutional or not.
> > >That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!
> > >Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted by
> > >elected representation.
> > >The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or not
> is
> > >ILLEGAL.
> > >The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.
> >
> > What a crock. First thing, Federal cases don't start in the Supreme
> > Court they start in District Courts then go to the Courts of Appeals,
> > then maybe, maybe they go to the Supreme Court.
>
> I know. I have filed a case before.
> Why did they not say the law in my case was unconstituional?, and do not
> ask me for any details.
> Why did they call this one unconstitutional and not the law which I told
> them is unconstitutional?

Better read over your briefs. You probably had no
case, and judging for your argument here, it is no
surprise.> > At each level the judge(s) apply
constitutional law precedent to the
> > case and make a ruling.
>
> They didn't in my case, you stupid ignorant wimpy fool.

You are probably too stupid to understand the judgment.
It is possible that your briefs were so weak that your
case simply failed on its' merits.
> >
> > I'm sorry if that seems inconvenient for you, but that's the way it
> > works. Stop reading that right wing wacko crap.
> >
>
> It is inconvenient for me which means I am going to smash your God Damed
> head if I get the chance and you still rebell (threaten my life or anyone
> else's life) against me too much.

Nobody threatened you - however you have threatened us.
Best you get some mental help, before the white coats
come for you

> > >I am sick of the Lower Courts adopting this pick and choose attitude of
> > >which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to deem as
> > >unconstitutional or unenforceable. We should oust them from the benches
> they
> > >sit on in the interest of serving the people of our nation.
> > >IMO, lower court judges are WIMPS!
> >
> > IMO, you are a MORON!
> >
>
> Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me other than that it is to be
> eliminated.
>
> Commondreams?
>
> What a god damned joke you are.
> You are not standing for the common good.

Little johnny - go home and tell your mother she wants you.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

LeMod Pol

Johnny wrote:
>
> "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m...
> > "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
> > news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
> > >
> > > "... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
> > > protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
> > > has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
> > > particular types of abortion."
> > >
> > > U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
> > > federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
> > > Act unconstitutional.
> > > By LARRY NEUMEISTER
> >
> > But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
> Republicans
> > in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in the
> > campaign.
>
> That was not the law's purpose, liar.

How would you know, littler johnny? How many cases
have you argued in any federal appeals court??

> The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison any
> person who trasngressed the law for two years.
> Read the LAW, STUPID!

I did and noted that Congress deliberately omitted the
mothers health protection clause thus rendering the
whole act invalid. Thus protecting the President's
2000 pledge, without in fact impacting on the practise
of medicine.

Where did you get your law degree, kid?
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy

LeMod Pol

Johnny wrote:
>> You are baaaaaaing?
> Your lack of respect for sheep is another reason you will die.
> Shepherds kill wolves when they need to.
> Shepherds throw rocks at wolves.
> Shepherds will kill enemies of the sheep.
> It happens.

You need to stop your threats before your account is
cancelled for net abuse.

I have read all five of your posts and find your
stupidity and ignorance overweening. See your mental
health professional.

Johnny

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4130C9BB.ABA48EA1@igs.net...
>
>
> Johnny wrote:
> >> You are baaaaaaing?
> > Your lack of respect for sheep is another reason you will die.
> > Shepherds kill wolves when they need to.
> > Shepherds throw rocks at wolves.
> > Shepherds will kill enemies of the sheep.
> > It happens.
>
> You need to stop your threats before your account is
> cancelled for net abuse.

There is no threat in my messages.

>
> I have read all five of your posts and find your
> stupidity and ignorance overweening. See your mental
> health professional.

Your stupidity is what is evident here.

Johnny

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4130C605.197BE0D2@igs.net...
>
>
> Johnny wrote:
> >
> > "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m...
> > > "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
> > > news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
> > > >
> > > > "... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
> > > > protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
> > > > has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
> > > > particular types of abortion."
> > > >
> > > > U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
> > > > federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
> > > > Act unconstitutional.
> > > > By LARRY NEUMEISTER
> > >
> > > But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
> > Republicans
> > > in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in
the
> > > campaign.
> >
> > That was not the law's purpose, liar.
>
> How would you know, littler johnny?

All you haev to do is READ the law itself.

> How many cases
> have you argued in any federal appeals court??
>

I could argue many of them. Being admitted to argue cases in Federal Appeals
Court is something that is controlled.

> > The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison
any
> > person who trasngressed the law for two years.
> > Read the LAW, STUPID!
>
> I did and noted that Congress deliberately omitted the
> mothers health protection clause thus rendering the
> whole act invalid. Thus protecting the President's
> 2000 pledge, without in fact impacting on the practise
> of medicine.
>

That was cited many times in the initial arguments and you are not correct.
The section which allowed an abortion to protect the life of the mother was
included.

> Where did you get your law degree, kid?

Not from LAMEBRAIN U.
Where did you get yours?
From DEWEY DECEIVE (CHEATHAM) and HOME?

> --
> LP
> In politics, moderation is the best policy

But your policy is not one of moderation. It is extreme.

Johnny

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4130C086.BA9AEBCE@igs.net...
>
>
> David wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:10:10 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
> > >unconstitutional or not.
> > >That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!
> > >Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted
by
> > >elected representation.
> > >The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or
not is
> > >ILLEGAL.
> > >The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.
> >
> > What a crock. First thing, Federal cases don't start in the Supreme
> > Court they start in District Courts then go to the Courts of Appeals,
> > then maybe, maybe they go to the Supreme Court.

You never heard of Roe V Wade?
Why is it that case was not ruled on without it getting to the Supreme
Court.
Your understanding is what is lacking, not mine.
The Lawbreaking Lower Judiciary is quite damnable, imo.

> >
> > At each level the judge(s) apply constitutional law precedent to the
> > case and make a ruling.
> >
> > I'm sorry if that seems inconvenient for you, but that's the way it
> > works. Stop reading that right wing wacko crap.
> >
> > >I am sick of the Lower Courts adopting this pick and choose attitude of
> > >which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to deem as
> > >unconstitutional or unenforceable. We should oust them from the benches
they
> > >sit on in the interest of serving the people of our nation.
> > >IMO, lower court judges are WIMPS!
> >
> > IMO, you are a MORON!
>
> Certainly no law school would admit him.

Who even wants to go Absolution of the Law school?
Who even wants to sell their soul to practice obfuscation and circumvention
of the law?

> --
> LP
> In politics, moderation is the best policy

Johnny

"LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4130BFA8.6B4EB7@igs.net...
>
>
> Johnny wrote:
> >
> > Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
> > unconstitutional or not.
> > That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!
> > Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted by
> > elected representation.
> > The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or not
is
> > ILLEGAL.
> > The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.
> >
> > I am sick of the Lower Courts adopting this pick and choose attitude of
> > which laws they want to enforce and which laws they want to deem as
> > unconstitutional or unenforceable. We should oust them from the benches
they
> > sit on in the interest of serving the people of our nation.
> > IMO, lower court judges are WIMPS!
>
> Suggest you go back to law school, Johnny!!

Absolution of the Law School in what State?
Do you suggest San Francisco?
Are you gay, too?

> --
> LP
> In politics, moderation is the best policy

Curly Surmudgeon

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:41:39 -0400, Johnny wrote:

>
> "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
> news:4130C9BB.ABA48EA1@igs.net...
>>
>>
>> Johnny wrote:
>> >> You are baaaaaaing?
>> > Your lack of respect for sheep is another reason you will die.
>> > Shepherds kill wolves when they need to. Shepherds throw rocks at
>> > wolves.
>> > Shepherds will kill enemies of the sheep. It happens.
>>
>> You need to stop your threats before your account is cancelled for net
>> abuse.
>
> There is no threat in my messages.
>
>
>> I have read all five of your posts and find your stupidity and ignorance
>> overweening. See your mental health professional.
>
> Your stupidity is what is evident here.

Another idiot added to my Bozo Filter.

-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank Dwyer

Johnny wrote:
>
> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:41307FB2.7EC6BEC7@citlink.net...
> > Johnny wrote:
> > >
> > > Lower Court judges do NOT have the Authority to determine if a law is
> > > unconstitutional or not.
> > > That job is for the Supreme Court ONLY!
> >
> > The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme
> > Court, AND in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
> > ordain and establish
> >
> > > Lower Courts are supposed to abide by the RULE OF LAW that is drafted by
> > > elected representation.
> > > The act of a lower court determining if a law is unconstitutional or not
> is
> > > ILLEGAL.
> > > The job of the Lower Courts is to rule according to the law as written.
> >
> > The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme
> > Court, AND in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
> > ordain and establish.
>
> They are not solid in their practice.

They are as solid as need be.

> They are not in agreement nationwide,

Damn good thing.

> they are not representative.

They're appointed.

> They are very much acting outside the law.

Hardly.

Attila

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:12:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<XE_Xc.37459$%n4.33734@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7LMXc.8779$QJ3.8386@newssvr21.news.prodigy.c om...
>> "LeMod Pol" <mod_pol@igs.net> wrote in message
>> news:412F595F.2E9BFEA@igs.net...
>> >
>> > "... faulted the ban for not containing an exception to
>> > protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court
>> > has made clear is required in laws prohibiting
>> > particular types of abortion."
>> >
>> > U.S. District Judge Richard Casey became the second
>> > federal judge to call the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
>> > Act unconstitutional.
>> > By LARRY NEUMEISTER
>>
>> But the ban has served its purpose: it gave Bush and right-wing
>Republicans
>> in the Congress the ability to claim the "abortion fighter" title in the
>> campaign.
>
>That was not the law's purpose, liar.
>The law's purpose was to OUTLAW Partial Birth Abortions and to imprison any
>person who trasngressed the law for two years.
>Read the LAW, STUPID!

What the law says does not matter. It was obviously unconstitutional
and so far two separate courts have said this. The entire bill was
political.

Only a Constitutional Amendme