Today at the Supreme Court
— Posted by John (November 8, 2006 at 9:58 am)
**Scroll for updates**
Within the past hour, the U. S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in the first of two cases related to the federal partial-birth abortion ban.
Oral arguments in the second of the two cases will begin any minute now.
SCOTUSblog is reporting:
C-SPAN has announced on their website that C-SPAN Radio will be broadcasting the audio of oral argument in today’s partial-birth abortion cases back-to-back beginning at 12:30 PM eastern.
C-SPAN’s website is here.
**UPDATE: 11/8, 12:15pm: AP’s Mark Sherman posts a report on the hearings that notes the following:
Supreme Court justices Wednesday sharply questioned attorneys on both sides of the legal battle over what opponents call partial-birth abortions as the high court weighed whether to uphold Congress’s ban on the procedure.
and:
A man in the audience began shouting midway through the proceedings, disrupting the hearing briefly before police dragged him away.
The AP article doesn’t offer any more explanation about what the man said, but whatever his opinion on abortion is, disrupting a Supreme Court hearing is an act of almost unbelievable stupidity.
On the other hand, what I’ve listened to thus far from Solicitor General Paul Clement — who is arguing on behalf of the government that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is constitutional — has been the opposite of stupid. He has been very articulate and thorough in answering the justices’ questions.
**UPDATE: 11/8, 1:17pm: SCOTUSblog reports that the disrupter was an abortion opponent:
The Court proceeded with the case without allowing itself or counsel to be diverted by a brief but noisy outburst from a spectator, who shouted out against abortion and warned the Court of repentance before he was hustled out. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., reacted with some humor, telling the lawyer at the podium at the time that the Court would allow her an extra 30 seconds to make up for the brief pause. (The spectator, identified as Rives Miller Grogan of Los Angeles, was arrested under a federal law against disruptions in the Supreme Court or on its grounds and for resisting arrest, and was turned over to local authorities for possible prosecution.)
I repeat: Disrupting the hearing was an act of almost unbelievable stupidity.
We pro-lifers face a constant struggle to dispel the stereotype that we are a gaggle of Bible-thumping, uncivilized, slack-jawed bumpkins.
Idiotic stunts like the one pulled this morning at the Supreme Court make this struggle that much harder.
**UPDATE: 11/8, 2:33pm: Transcript of Gonzales v. Carhart (the first of the two cases) is available here [PDF].
**UPDATE: 11/8, 3:07pm: Transcript of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (the second case) is available here [PDF].
This entry is filed under Law & Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Mike says:
Sheila Liaugminas (formerly with Time Magazine, Host on Relevant Radio) has written some great articles on the Supreme Courts hearing on Partial Birth Abortion, the election, the vote on the South Dakota Ban and the Missouri Initiative. Her blog is at …
http://www.inforumblog.com/
Start with her column on 11-9-06 called “The day after…at the Supreme Court”.
Mike
Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 6:35 am
mary kay says:
Mike,
You always have such great information.
I lover that line about apologizing to sodom and gommorah.
I guess today is a new day. I’ll just have to shake off the blues and trust that God has a plan. What it is, I can’t fathom, but there you have it. Somehow, he’ll turn this to good.
On the romancatholic blog that shows that priest having the sacreligious mass on halloween they now show him refusing to give a woman communion because she is kneeling. He actually pulls her to a standing position and chastises her for daring to kneel. If this can go on in our own churches, how can we expect the rest of the world to “get it”?
I remember when I was younger and one of my siblings would do something to make my dad angry, and how much I hated not be able to “fix” it. You knew he wasn’t mad at you but he was still slamming doors and you knew to stay out of his way.
I picture God (the father) right now. So angry, and there is nothing we can do to help. Our siblings have really made Him mad, Our Mother is trying to calm Him down, but what can we really do? You don’t really want Him to get the belt and teach your brother or sister a lesson, but your brother or sister just keep doing the same stupid behavior over and over. You keep wondering how far your brother and sister can push Him before He blows and you feel so helpless…
Mercy. Justice. Mercy. Justice. Mercy.
God help this very broken world…
MK
Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 6:52 am
mary kay says:
http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2006/11/the_blasphemous.html
http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/
Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 6:56 am
Mike says:
Mary Kay,
Thats a good analogy!
Mike
Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 7:00 am
mary kay says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
what does this mean?
MK
Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Mary says:
It means that someone’s going to look at it before it actually gets posted.
Sometimes that’s the only way to prevent spam and trolls from taking over
Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
mary kay says:
Okay,
but I’ve only put links on here 3 or 4 times. Other people put them on here all the time.
Why is this one being moderated.
Is there something wrong with the sight?
Did I make a boo-boo?
I just want to understand.
MK
Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
mary kay says:
JOHN,
**UPDATE: 11/8, 2:33pm: Transcript of Gonzales v. Carhart (the first of the two cases) is available here [PDF].
**UPDATE: 11/8, 3:07pm: Transcript of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (the second case) is available here [PDF].
I’m curious. If the argument goes that it would be dangerous to perform a D&E on a woman when the goal was to perform a D&X, due to complications like bleeding, perforated uterus, etc., why are all of those things considered safe when the intent was to performm a D&E. I mean do the dangers only suddenly appear when the intent changes. They use the safety issue to play both sides.
The whole thing is going to give me nightmares.
Also, the judges kept talking about pre-viability vs viablility. But they seem to believe that viablility is after 26 weeks. We know that babies survive as early as 19 weeks. And they took it as gospel that they don’t feel pain until 20 weeks. Where did they get that info?
Why don’t they ask whether or not an attempt can be made to save the child after it is delivered intact, alive? Or ask why it has to be killed in order to spare the woman?
And why do they keep saying it’s between a doctor and her patient, when the doctor only exists to perform abortions. By their own admission hospitals won’t do these. So their “doctors” must not be their regular ob-gynies. Can’t the judges see that they are being duped? When asked why hospitals won’t perform these “operations” the other side just sort of stumbled but never really answered the question.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE keep posting the links so I can continue to follow the arguments…as long as I can stomach them anyway.
MK
Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Rosie says:
MK,
Health of the mother, to them, can mean so many things. They go so far as to consider her emotinal well being as “health of the mother”. The intent is always to kill the baby in those cases. It is like what Bill Clinton tried pulling, “what does “it” mean”. I guess they are supposed to sound intelligent, whoever plays with words the best wins. Can you imagine them talking to God like that when they are trying to answer him when he asks why they didn’t protect his little ones? “Well, some are bigger than others, so do you mean in terms of the smallest of the small babies?” Can you imagine? To be a fly on the wall then….
Comment posted November 10th, 2006 at 10:55 am