Right Wingnuts win (for now)! U.S. district court rules against stem cell policy

[zulchzulu]

Royce C. Lamberth is a federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, nominated by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed in 1987.

He's been a good stooge for the right wing for years and has delivered nonsensical judgments before.

In 1993, Lamberth socked the Clinton administration right out of the gate, fining Ira Magaziner nearly $300,000 for lying in court about the makeup of Hillary Clinton's health-care task force.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0204.mencimer.html

Granted, Lamberth has judged against some right wing attempts that clearly were indefensible, but he delivered one for the Gipper and the Flat Earth Right Wing Superstitionalists regarding stem cell research and embryos.

A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

"(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38820323/ns/health-cloning_and_stem_cells

Pay no mind to the facts regarding embryos used in embryonic stem cell research, which is considered by far as the best way to use this promising medical breakthrough.



So what exactly does this decision do with the willing absolute theocratic ignorance that has made this occur?

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.

(snip)

If scientists can reliably direct the differentiation of embryonic stem cells into specific cell types, they may be able to use the resulting, differentiated cells to treat certain diseases in the future. Diseases that might be treated by transplanting cells generated from human embryonic stem cells include Parkinson's disease, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and vision and hearing loss.

(snip)

One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.

(snip)

Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp

The Obama administration needs to condemn this asinine decision immediately.

[Mister Ed]

1. I hope this fool never spends fifteen years watching a loved one painfully succumbing to Parkinson's

...the way I watched my father.

That's the fate to which he could be condemning untold numbers of innocent people.

Just keep flushing those unused embryos at the fertility clinic right down the drain, pal. They're happier there.

[zulchzulu]

5. Precisely...

I'm sorry to hear what you and loved ones and your father went through. Wow.

Additionally, just what do these wingnuts think is better? Throw embryos out (killing them) or use them to save lives? It's that simple.

[Igel]

2. There are four very important words here.

Those four words have to be considered when trying to muster a criticism of the injunction.

Simple condemnation by Obama isn't sufficient. Mocking and ridiculing the plaintiffs isn't sufficient.

We can argue over whether the plaintiffs are "likely to succeed." But then we come back to the four very important words here. Ultimately, I'd think that the DOJ has to show that the judge's tentative opinion is incorrect.

Those words are "<b>the guidelines violated law</b>." If the guidelines didn't, the judge will either vacate the injunction or be overturned. If the guidelines did, then all the cavilling reduces to saying that Obama should not or at least has no need to obey the law.

Granted, I've read more than a couple people who believe that Obama doesn't have any need to actually obey the law and Constitution, and a few who believe that he should just overturn legislation with an executive order. They're loons. Or worse.

If the guidelines <i>did</i> violate the law, then the appropriate response is to try to change the law, not just simply condemn it and ignore it.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Use square brackets instead of

< and > when you're trying to do hypertext on this site.

[truedelphi]

6. i am not quite sure how it is that Presidents who write up Executive orders

and people who support them are loons (Frankly, I will always love JFK for his Executive Order, still on the books, that calls for the return to our government having and controlling the Central Bank, and shelving the private Federal Reserve) but I do agree with you that the only thing that needs to happen here is for a judge to realize that the stem cell situation is not in violation of the guidelines.

Especially since stem cells can now come from an individual's own body, and/or also placental tissue.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Ack. Jabba the Judge. (nt)

[seattleblue]

7. You have given a very selective history of this judge.

I wonder why since I am sure you have his entire history. Why are you trying to hide it from other DUers? This judge was head of the FISA court dealing with secret wiretaps on the Americans. He stood up to John Ashcroft and Ashcroft was able to get him thrown off the court in 2002 because he opposed Bush administration polices. In 2006 the Court of Appeals, under pressure from the Bush administration got him taken off Native American suits against the Interior Department. He had said the actions of the Interior Department were racist regarding Native American claims. Why are you trying to slander a principled judge? The fact is he ruled against the plaintiffs in this embryonic research case originally and was overturned by the Court of Appeals. He then applied the law which said funding of embryonic research is not allowed. He had no choice given the Court of Appeals ruling. The law has to be changed if you want a different result. Why are you trying to fool the readers of this thread?

[Zoeisright]

8. Unless 'readers of this thread' are right wing, they aren't easily fooled.

Stopping stem cell research is a far-right tactic that is blatantly stupid and cruel.

[seattleblue]

9. The OP gave a false history of the judge and the case.

The judge originally ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs right to sue and the Court of Appeals overturned him giving the plaintiffs the right to sue. So the judge was forced to grant the injunction because of the law that is on the books. Was any of this in the OP? If the judge had done anything else he would have be overturned again.