The US Supreme Court is trying to get back in my good graces...

The Supreme Court is trying to get back on my good side, by upholding a ban on partial-birth abortions. For reasons that anyone familir with the birthing process know full well, a BREACH BIRTH, where a babie's legs come out first rather than the head, is a bad, dangerous thing! And yet, a breach birth is artifiically induced ON PURPOSE as 'Step 1' of a partial-birth abortion. Realize that before the "surgeon" sticks a scaple in the back of the babies' head to kill it, 80% of the kid is already OUTSIDE of the woman's body...the remaining part is only the head, and the ONLY REASON it's left in the birth canal is for the fig leaf of ethical dignity in that the baby was killed "in the womb"--not outside of it--even though 80% of the little guy is already outside of the mother's body...

The pretense that we need this procedure because it's SAFE is an outright lie, there's nothing safe about it, especially if you are the little dude getting the knife in the back of your neck. It's done for the pure sake of convenience, as it's easier to yank the little guy out and stab him in the neck than it is to use the other method: dismemberment of the child while it's INSIDE of the mother's womb.

You see folks, if you chop a baby up while it's INSIDE of a mother's womb, that is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT -- never mind the fact that I have yet to find ANY copy of the Constitution that mentions the word "abortion" or anything related to it. It must be in the index or something...

But if you were to take a baby and slice it up AFTER it comes out of the mother's womb, why that's MURDER. In the womb, a RIGHT, out of the womb, MURDER. It's an amazing thing the fine line between legality and prison, isn't it? Any questions?

Well that's your lesson in the logic and rational of liberal left-wing thinking for today. Thank you very much.

An excerpt from the Trib:

The U.S. Supreme Court handed conservatives a long-sought victory Wednesday, upholding a nationwide ban on a medical procedure that opponents call "partial-birth abortion" and giving lawmakers more leeway to restrict the practice of abortion in general.

Experts on both sides of the abortion divide predicted the ruling would encourage state and federal governments to impose tighter regulations on abortion, but said there was no indication the high court was any closer to reversing Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that guaranteed women the right to terminate a pregnancy.

The 5-4 ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the federal abortion ban signed into law by President Bush in 2003 does not violate that constitutional right. Opponents of the ban "have not demonstrated that the act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Kennedy said.

The majority opinion was joined by Bush's two Supreme Court appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, as well as by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling "alarming" because it failed to respect the court's abortion precedents, including that the woman's health should be the doctor's paramount consideration. Wednesday's decision "deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety," she said.

She called the majority's justifications "flimsy and transparent" and said they did not bother to conceal their hostility to abortion rights: "Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label 'abortion doctor.' "

Ginsburg's dissent was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

The law bans a rare and controversial surgical procedure performed after the first trimester of pregnancy.

In a reaction typical of abortion-rights activists, Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, said the two new justices "did what they were put on the court to do: strike a blow against women's fundamental right to choose abortion."

Meanwhile, the National Right to Life Committee, which was instrumental in passing the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and similar state laws, applauded the decision, as did other anti-abortion groups.

SOURCE: Chicago Tribune: 18 APRIL 2007: Court backs ban on abortion procedure

Enemy of Western Civ: The Supreme Court (well, at least five of the nine justices anyway...)

It seems that the five left-leaning ACTIVIST Supreme Court justices have decided that CARBON DIOXIDE is a POLLUTANT that MUST be regulated by the EPA! I guess we will all need to get permits from Uncle Sam in order to exhale.

The Wall Street Journal posted a SCATHING editorial about the utter stupidity of this decision in today's paper. Excerpt:

Jolly Green Justices
April 3, 2007; Page A14

The current Supreme Court is a talented group of jurists, but until yesterday we didn't think their expertise ran to climatology. The Justices would have done better in their big global warming decision if they'd stuck more closely to the law.

They showed no such modesty. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, a narrow majority managed to diminish the rules of judicial standing, rewrite the definition of "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, and dramatically curtail the decision-making authority of the executive branch. And judging from Justice John Paul Stevens's 5-4 majority decision, they did so because the five Justices are personally anxious about rising temperatures. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in dissent, the "Court's alarm over global warming" has led it to substitute "its own desired outcome" for the EPA's judgment.

The case goes back to 1999, when activists frustrated that Congress hadn't enacted a global warming program demanded that the EPA use its Clean Air Act power to unilaterally regulate CO2 "pollutants" from cars. The EPA declined to do so in 2003, claiming it lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2. The greens and several states turned to that mecca for frustrated liberal policy makers -- the courts.

The five Supreme climatologists granted Al Gore's fondest wish by declaring that "the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." The majority warned about a "precipitous rise in sea levels," "severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems" and "increases in the spread of disease."

The Court used all of this not-so-inadvertent opining to justify its conclusion that CO2 is indeed a "pollutant." The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate "any air pollutant" from cars that might "endanger public health or welfare," though the majority took the widest view that the definition includes any "physical, chemical" substance that goes in the air. (Next up: oxygen.) Justice Scalia poked fun at this reasoning, noting Webster's definition of "pollute" is "to make or render impure or unclean" -- which might apply to sulfur dioxide or other dirty gases but not a product of human respiration that resides in the upper atmosphere.

In any case, isn't this something for Congress to decide? Global warming was already a hot topic in 1990, when Congress last amended the Clean Air Act. Yet it declined to enact amendments that would have forced the EPA to set CO2 emissions standards. The Members have since been engaged in periodic brawls over whether and how to regulate CO2, but, voila, the High Court has now declared that it shall be so.

The ruling means the EPA must regulate automobile CO2 emissions unless that agency can show the science of global warming, or the potential harm it may cause, are too uncertain to justify action. The Bush EPA will no doubt be sued whatever it does. Congress will also dive in with more regulation, if only to clear up the legal uncertainty.

Perhaps most distressing is the way the majority made a hash of traditional "standing" doctrine, which determines when a plaintiff has a right to sue. To justify its global warming afflatus, the Justices simply asserted that the Massachusetts coastline faces imminent threat from rising seas. Not even Mr. Gore goes that far. But the Court cites climate models to suggest future harm in order to claim the threat of immediate injury, and thus standing by the Bay State.

"Aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners' 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts coastal land from 20th century global sea level increases," writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent. "It is pure conjecture."

And done for the purpose of pure policy invention. Standing is one of the few self-restraints on the power of the federal courts, and it is a far too frequent habit of the current Supreme Court to view its own power as unlimited. By diluting the standards for standing, the High Court creates a highway by which judges can speed past the political branches and play an ever larger role in American public life.

It is also worth noting that this is at least the third case in two years in which Justice Kennedy has provided the fifth vote for a decidedly activist liberal majority. Someone recently quipped that Justice Stevens considers it his late life's work to compete for the jump ball that is the jurisprudence of Justice Kennedy, and he seems to be winning most possessions.

SOURCE: The Wall Street Journal: 3 APRIL 2007: Jolly Green Justices
Note: Only subscribers to the WSJ can access this article on the web site.