How long until we hear from the courts on the Dakota abortion ban?

[rockymountaindem]

Does anyone have any information? The articles I read didn't have any timeframe.

[tritsofme]

1. I would assume that a temporary injuction

stopping the law from taking effect will be obtained in the next several days.

[existentialist]

4. Presumably.

Planned parenthood has promised immediate legal action, and Governor Rounds acknowledged that the law would not go into effect until the constitutional challenge had been heard when he signed the bill into law.

Otherwise it would go into effect on July 1, 2006; July 1 is the date all nonemergency legislation goes into effect in South Dakota.

[sam sarrha]

2. it is a test case, wont go into effect till the Supreme Court OK's it..

[rucky]

3. It won't make it past State Appellate level

that's my prediction.

[rockymountaindem]

5. Why don't you think SCOTUS will take it?

I don't see why Alito and Roberts wouldn't loooove to rule in this case.

[northzax]

17. it's not a federal issue

it's a state issue, therefore, it won't be heard by a federal court. I bet the S.D. Supreme Court dismisses it.

[existentialist]

6. You are correct in that the consensus legal opinion is that the

South Dakota Supreme Court will find the law unconstitutional. However, the proponents of this legislation, who were primarily out of state right to lifers, who also anticipate that the law will be held unconstitutional by the South Dakota Supreme Court undertook this action precisely so that they could then file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to contest the anticipated ruling of the South Dakota Supreme Court.

[northzax]

20. SCOTUS won't take it

if the South Dakota Supreme Court overrules it, as expected, I doubt that a Federal Court will intervene. There really is no precedent to do so.

[smtpgirl]

7. YEP, the SCOTUS will definitely scuttle this

[Cleita]

8. On the news they said it would be years before it would

go into effect. However, the bad thing about this is that they kept it on the back burner until Bush had a chance to appoint the Supremes that would be anti-Roe vs. Wade. They pushed this through in a state that they knew they wouldn't have too many problems getting this kind of legislation through right after the Supremes appointments were assured.

Of course it will be opposed through the court system until it gets to the Supremes. When they uphold it in the Federal Supreme court, goodby women's rights. I can say one thing for these stupid neo-cons. For their own agenda, they sure plan ahead.

[leatherfeather]

10. The talking heads I have heard that follow the courts,

Say It will go to the Supremes quickly.

They also say the SCOTUS will likely take it on. But that will end in a 5-4 ruling it down thus setting another precident against overthrowing RvW.

I hope they are right.

[still_one]

14. they assume it will get ruled down

that is why the devious bastards only allowed the life of the mother as an exception, so they can see the arguments, then bring it back before the court with rape, incest, and life of the mother exceptions

People who are raped or have incest comitted against them will resort to dangerous illegal abortions, unless they have the means to have it done in places where it is legal

[leatherfeather]

16. I think they want it ruled down but with a repuke court.

Without Abortion the RW loses thier biggest issue. I Think that they would never challange this if they thought it would win.

Other then abortion what do they have that is real? Gay Marraige. Tax cuts...LOL, Small Government...lol, Balanced Budget...lol, on and on and on.

They will not overturn R v W. It is all for show. It is all they have.

[still_one]

22. I disagree, this is just one step so they can see the strategy

and then bring it back again when * replaces the final swing justice

they really do want to control people, this is not an exercise to lose, but to slowly ban all abortion, and remove all the progress made in the past fifty years, from civil rights to anti-trust legislation

It is very close to be all over for our country as we know it, and I have very little confidence in the 2006 election

[leatherfeather]

23. I don't think 2006 makes a differance.

The RW wants it to be a close vote and maybe chop some things off abortion but, They lose their biggest issue if R v W is overturned. The base goes home and doesn't vote.

Just my oppinion.

[still_one]

24. 2006 is everything, if we lose this, it is over

[leatherfeather]

25. I agree that 2006 is very important.

But I will stick to my guns that R v W will not be overturned.

That evangistacle base is one issue and that is abortion.(do not give me sh@t about spelling..)..lol.

It is all a game to politicals. Dems believe it, Reps Use their disagreement to get votes. And many vote on that one subject.

If R v W is overturned many repukes won't bother to vote anymore and the repugs know it.

Thus overturning it is a lose for the repukes. Pretty simple.

[still_one]

26. mccain made very clear today that he would have signed the SD

bill

lines are being drawn now, will the dems stand together on this? I am skeptical

They don't even stand unified when Murtha puts his ass on the line and says Iraq was a mistake, and we must get out

hope against hope

You and I are together on the importance of 2006 though

[Freedom_Aflaim]

9. You know what would be funny?

If no one took the bait. That is challenged this in court.

Since the SC has ruled long ago, this law has no effect.

The passers of this abomination WANT - YES WANT a pro-choice group to sue over it and drive it through successively higher and higher courts in hopes of getting into the SC (and upheld of course).

However, if the pro-choice groups were to leave it alone, this law would just lie dormant.

I suspect though that the briefs and filings are already prepared and will be filed 2 seconds after this because a (dormant) law.

[RoyGBiv]

11. Uh, no ...

This is not the way the application of SCOTUS decisions in interpreting constitutionality work. SCOTUS rules on constitutional questions as they exist at the time the cases are brought before the Court. The rulings have direct impact on the law or laws in existence at that time. Laws passed after the decision are only legally measured against the ruling within the court system itself because neither the legislative nor the executive has the legal authority to pass judgment on questions of constitutionality. In practice, legislatures tend to avoid passing laws (or executives veto proposed laws) they know will be struck down unless the cost in both dollars and popular sentiment is outweighed by the benefit as they define it in a given moment. The benefit of passing this law is, naturally, having the question arise again as a direct challenge to Roe v Wade (on their way to challenging Griswold v. Connecticut, btw) under circumstances opponents of Roe deem positive to their cause, and you're certainly correct in saying this is what they want. However, if the law is not challenged, it is not dormant. By not challenging, it has the full force of any law passed in any legislature and signed by the executive.

In essence what you're asking is for people either to obey the law completely or not obey the law and not complain when they go to jail, i.e. not challenge it, which clearly has the effect of rendering the law perfectly useful by the executive to persecute women and family planning workers and activists, hardly a description of a dormant law.

[napi21]

13. I agree, BUT how does this remark by the SD Governor fit?

Governor Rounds acknowledged that the law would not go into effect until the constitutional challenge had been heard when he signed the bill into law.

I've never heard a comment by a Governor like that before! If he acknowledged the law would NOT go into effect until the challenge has been heard, what impact does that have on the effective date of the law? IF there is no challenge (though I suspect there will be many) how is the law affected by his statement?

[RoyGBiv]

15. I think he's probably an idiot ...

But that's just a guess. :-)

I don't know anything about him or about the internal politics of SD. I suspect he is here acknowledging that an injunction against the law will emerge immediately, and he's telegraphing the intent of using the law to challenge Roe. None of this is a secret, of course, but I do agree it is weird for a politician actually to appear to acknowledge it so openly.

It's also almost a moot point as it is with SD having only one PP clinic, IIRC. The strategists for this couldn't have bought a better location to institgate the battle they will be fighting. There's not enough organized opposition to it within SD to threaten seriously what's taking place until it gets into the federal system, but that also means neither does the need exist for heavy handed tactics to bring it to that point, tactics that might turn public sentiment even harder against them before they have the chance to grandstand.

[regnaD kciN]

12. Unlikely...

However, if the pro-choice groups were to leave it alone, this law would just lie dormant.

No, if the pro-choice groups were to leave it alone, the pro-lifers in S.D. government would force the issue by raiding the abortion clinic (note the singular) there, seizing the medical records and proceeding with criminal charges against those doctors (and the patients?) who conducted abortions after the day the law took effect.

Since it would be unchallenged law, the circuit court would have no choice but to convict. If (if?) those found guilty chose to appeal their convictions, the only grounds on which they could do it would be on challenging the constitutionality of the law. Which puts us right back on the same path.

[northzax]

21. it may have no effect

but that doesn't help someone placed in jail for violating it. There are laws on the books of every state that are blatently unconstitutional, as long as they aren't enforced in any way, there are no court challenges to it. As soon as someone in SD enforces this law, it will be challenged in court.

[kevinbgoode]

18. What I would like to know is why the hell aren't the sponsors

of this legislation...and that stupid governor, being petitioned to be REMOVED?
Now this is the difference...the fundies don't get their way, and they'll move heaven and earth to do it, even if it means petitioning for a constitutional amendment. We should NOT depend on the courts alone. . .isn't anyone in that state prepared to go after the legislature for this travesty?

[DanCa]

19. when will the religious right be met with civil disobedience.?

Thats what I am wondering. How much more of assault on our Constitution are we going to allow by these animals? Not I am not talking about the good christians on this site who I think are awesome. I just think that we en mass should go down to focus on the family and give 'em a piece of our mind.

[Clark2008]

27. Why in the HELL doesn't someone challenge this as a matter

of involuntary servitude?

If a fetus is a human, then that human is abridging the free rights of another person, the woman, by forcing her body to work without pay and without consent. Period.

A slave considered by law as property or chattel, and deprived of most of the human rights ordinarily held by free persons.

In this case, the fetus is the free "person" and the woman is "chattel." Can't be done without violating the 13th Amendment.

[existentialist]

28. good thought