“It is worrisome beyond the direct impact of yesterday’s ruling on election law,” said, Jessica Arons, the director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress. It’s certainly cause for concern.”
As Politico reports:
Critics said the court’s 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United case Thursday declared unconstitutional a law which has been in place since 1907 barring corporations from involvement in federal elections. Just six years ago, the Supreme Court called the longstanding ban “firmly embedded in our law.” Now, it’s gone. Abortion rights advocates said the willingness of the court’s majority to toss aside precedent undercut Chief Justice John Roberts’s assurances at his confirmation hearings in 2005 that he would tread lightly when it came to rulings like Roe v. Wade.
Folks, this is great news. Most lawyers know that Roe v. Wade is a poor excuse of a decision. It has many Constitutional weaknesses, but our system of adhering to "judicial precedent" has made it the foundation for further poor decisions and the deprivation of life for million of innocent victims. Pray hard for the justices on the Supreme Court and pray that we don't get another Obama appointment to the bench.
3 Comments:
If you consider the advanced technology that we have now that we didn't have in the early 70's, it should be abundantly apparent that the baby in utero is indeed a baby and not a mass of tissue. It seems like this would be a good reason to consider overturning Roe v Wade.
While I see where you're coming from and it seems more likely that such a precedent would be overturned, I don't know that I can make that logical leap.
My guess, given the current make-up of the court and the current situation the Democratic party finds itself in, the court found a way to help "their people" find more money to win elections like the one in Massachusetts. I want to agree with you, but the skeptic in me says that this is a decision marked only by the desire for more political gain by the ruling party and will lead to more influence by lobbyists and more corrupt politics as we all know that corporations have a lot more money to throw at or withhold from political figures and parties.
Wayne,
I agree that it's still a long shot for Roe v. Wade to be overturned by this Court. I'm not so sure that I would agree with your opinion that the court was deciding to help "their people." My only point is that if it makes the pro-abortion lobby nervous, it makes me see some potential.
Post a Comment