The activist SCOTUS: First corporate political donations. Next, abortion rights?

[cali]

Activists see threat to Roe precedent

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 1/22/10 11:01 PM EST

The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday overturning a ban on corporate political spending that had been in place for more than a century has left abortion-rights supporters jittery that the justices could be similarly prepared to upend the landmark Roe v. Wade decision the court handed down 37 years ago this week. Photo: AP


The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday overturning a ban on corporate political spending that had been in place for more than a century has left abortion-rights supporters jittery that the justices could be similarly prepared to upend the landmark Roe v. Wade decision the court handed down 37 years ago this week.

“Yesterday’s Roberts court decision, which exhibited a stunning disregard for settled law of decades’ standing, is terrifying to those of us who care deeply about the Constitutional protections the court put in place for women’s access to abortion,” said Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We are deeply concerned….Yesterday’s decision shows the court will reach out to take an opportunity to wholesale reverse a precedent the hard right has never liked.”

“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.”

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.

<snip>

A lawyer who regularly argues before the Supreme Court, Tom Goldstein of Akin Gump, said the abortion rights supporters were right to be worried in the wake of Thursday’s decision.

“Some of the Supreme Court doesn’t like some of the court’s O’Connor-era abortion jurisprudence just like they don’t like some of the O’Connor-era jurisprudence on campaign finance,” Goldstein said. “Abortion is one of the areas where there is a long string of cases conservatives believe is totally misguided.”

Goldstein said the campaign finance decision indicates that the court is increasingly willing to break with previous precedents when it comes to “the really central questions of constitutional law,” which include abortion, gay rights, the death penalty and church-state issues.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31880.html#ixzz0dRQp9NL1

[Democat]

1. Roberts lied during his confirmation - he should be impeached.

If Democrats don't send someone out to ask publicly if Roberts should be impeached, they are weak. Republicans constantly threaten the 9th circuit - it's time that Democrats started putting some pressure on the activist Supremes.

[cali]

3. so do repukes have a history of impeaching SC Justices? No.

And lying about what he'd do in his confirmation hearing, ie, being an "umpire" is not an impeachable lie.

Impeachment of SC Justices is rarer than hen's teeth. Time for DUers to work with reality.

[Democat]

13. Is it more rare than splitting up the 9th circuit?

Likely not! However, the Republicans threaten the judges in the 9th every time they don't like a ruling. The Republican's idea is obviously to keep the judges thinking about the threats when they make decisions. If you don't keep these people in check they will move further and further toward extremism. If the other side's politicians are willing to stand up and threaten, but ours are not, then the entire government moves to the right.

[cali]

2. or to put it another way, why is this court so activist?

Do the felonious 5 think that this is the time to make sweeping changes? Are they worried that President Obama might have the opportunity to change the balance of the court?

[madrchsod]

5. yes they are..i think kennedy will be the next to go.

[depakid]

9. Far right reactionary judge are ALWAYS activists- they only hide behind simplistic labels

accusing others of doing exactly what they do- and intend to do. They're interested only in political and ideological results- not the law, not tradition nor the integrity of the court

-and as often as not they're unethical to boot, as with Alito- who lied to the Senate during his first confirmation, only to have complicit corrupt Dems turn around and ignore that in confirming him again.

[madrchsod]

4. there is no doubt that abortion is next

a case will be fast tracked to the court and abortions will once again be against the law in the usa.

back to the back alley and darning needles ladies.....your body does`t belong to you.

[cali]

7. I agree. I think they'll return it to the states

which will mean that in 3/4 of the states abortion will be completely illegal.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. catholic.org -. ."decision handed down in 'Citizens United' opens the door . . . a game changer"

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=35247

[cali]

8. thanks. from the article

We should be emboldened by this Supreme Court decision. We should also use it as a blueprint for our future political and legal activism. It is time to follow our President’s example in at least one way, by becoming “community organizers.”

Wielding the language set forth in this opinion we need to build – and massively fund - the organizations, associations, and movements desperately needed in this urgent hour. It is time for boldness! A truly free nation must recognize the first freedom, the freedom to be born, or it will lose freedom itself. In the Wake of the March for Life, the Supreme Court Decision in “Citizens United’ Empowers a New Citizen Action.


Ironic how they gush about how family oriented an organization who's acronym is CUNT, is.

[Pab Sungenis]

10. I'm all for corporations having abortion rights.

As many corporations that can be aborted, the better.

Oh, wait. I get what you mean. Never mind.

[stellad]

11. How many corporations are in prison?

[cali]

12. and this has what to do with what I posted?

[blues90]

14. Is there anything you ever post that is not a one liner comment

or a link to an artical. You are a complete bore who never takes a chance.Never offers an opinion or has a thought of your own. Welcome to IGNORE .