![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Culture of Life!
Tom DeLay thinks it's time for the legislature to exercise its authority over the judiciary to keep judges from thumbing their noses at Congress (otherwise known as not allowing themselves to be intimidated by radical conservative fanatic bullies - hell, even Cheney knows that). The good news is that Rick Santorum can name chapter and verse from the Constitution to support that the legislature has authority over the courts. Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas (the state wherein an infant was taken off life support against his parents' wishes the same week Congress was all atwitter about Schiavo. Ironically enough, the hospital had the power to overrule the parents' decision because of a law that then Governor Bush signed) said he wondered if frustration against perceived political decisions by judges "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification."
In other good news about the sanctity of life, BBC is reporting on the current American scandal of pharmacists denying women birth control on "moral grounds." Chins up, though, we're still (for the moment) ahead of Iran, where a woman can get an abortion, but only in the first four months and cases where the mother's life is in danger or the child would be handicapped. (Handicapped children are a terrible emotional and financial drain, see.) Beyond that, she only needs permission from the father, three doctors, and a coroner.
In other happy news in that region, Don Rumsfeld has declared we don't have an exit strategy for Iraq, we have a "victory strategy." Despite the happy cheers from the troops whose morale he was there to boost (you know, the army we have, not the army we want) "victory strategy" is right up there with "mission accomplished," "bring 'em on," and "culture of life" as far as I'm concerned. The right wing sure does have its rhetoric down, though.
Oh, and the woman who was the National Security Advisor when the single most deadly foreign attack on American soil took place was promoted to Secretary of State. (Yeah, I know that's old news, but it still boggles my mind.)
In other good news about the sanctity of life, BBC is reporting on the current American scandal of pharmacists denying women birth control on "moral grounds." Chins up, though, we're still (for the moment) ahead of Iran, where a woman can get an abortion, but only in the first four months and cases where the mother's life is in danger or the child would be handicapped. (Handicapped children are a terrible emotional and financial drain, see.) Beyond that, she only needs permission from the father, three doctors, and a coroner.
In other happy news in that region, Don Rumsfeld has declared we don't have an exit strategy for Iraq, we have a "victory strategy." Despite the happy cheers from the troops whose morale he was there to boost (you know, the army we have, not the army we want) "victory strategy" is right up there with "mission accomplished," "bring 'em on," and "culture of life" as far as I'm concerned. The right wing sure does have its rhetoric down, though.
Oh, and the woman who was the National Security Advisor when the single most deadly foreign attack on American soil took place was promoted to Secretary of State. (Yeah, I know that's old news, but it still boggles my mind.)
no subject
no subject
Cheers! :)
no subject
In the mood for some knitting in the park this weekend?
no subject
Leonard Bernstein?
no subject
You have my info, yes?
no subject
heh.
i don't think i have your number anymore ...
no subject
no subject
GAH!
Re: GAH!
Re: GAH!
Re: GAH!
no subject
no subject
the thing that baffles me is that Bush has said that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, and that there is no way to know when we win the war on terror. therefore, how could we ever claim a victory in Iraq? And shouldn't victory in Iraq be claimed by the people therein once a stable democracy is established and the occupiers are out?
see, this is why i try not to think about these things.
did i ever tell you about the time Rummy waved at my dog?
no subject
What I meant by Orwellian sounding was the name. Lots of Bush's choices have been Orwellian (parts of the Patriot Act, etc) but few have been given names that actually sound directly lifted from the text of 1984. This does.
You can just imagine a speech by Big Brother on the telescreen about the "Victory Strategy" of our war against Eastasia. Or Eurasia. Whichever.
no subject
no subject
no subject
The question of whether Congress would be immensely stupid to try to limit jurisdiction over such controversial subjects is a different matter entirely... plus, chances are pretty good that if they try to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction, someone will challenge those specific limits as unconstitutional, and then the very courts whose jurisdiction they're trying to limit will be the ones who get to decide whether those limits are proper.
I don't think they really want to limit the courts' jurisdiction - I think they're trying to pick an enormous fight that will allow them to bring some judicial impeachments.
no subject
it sounds kind of round about; what do you mean by which kinds of cases federal courts have jurisdiction for?
(and suddenly, I am wondering about the etymolgy of jurisdiction.)
no subject
Oh, and yes, we Brits do have a chuckle when the anti-choice folk pop their heads up, if only because we know truly black humour when we see it...
no subject
Basically, beyond what the Constitution says specifically about the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, it's silent on the lower federal courts other than to say Congress may create them. So Congress is also presumed to have final say over how those lower federal courts work and the scope of their jurisdiction. At any time, Congress could theoretically say, "Federal courts can no longer hear any action relating to works of fiction," and it would be a valid pronouncement; henceforth all such actions would have to be brought in state courts with appropriate jurisdiction over the parties involved.
It gets more complex, though, when Congress wants to limit jurisdiction over the types of things they're apparently suggesting. The Supreme Court, according to the Constitution (and according to itself, in Marbury v. Madison) has final say over any and all Constitutional issues, so for Congress to say "Federal courts can no longer hear any action relating to the question of whether a display of the Ten Commandments in a public building is constitutional" would be to raise the further question of whether it's constitutional for Congress to say such a thing. And someone with a legitimate grievance over a display of the Ten Commandments in a public building would then have to challenge the constitutionality of that jurisdictional limitation in order to challenge the display. A federal court could quite easily say Congress didn't have the right to limit its jurisdiction over a First Amendment issue, and strike down the law, which would start a whole new fight.
Now you see why it looks like it might be so much fun? :-{)} Conservatives almost certainly can't get a constitutional amendment passed declaring that public displays of the Ten Commandments are an exception to the prohibition against establishment of a state religion, so they'll try to prevent anybody else from raining on their religious parade by making it illegal for federal courts to rule on the issue. Only it's almost certainly unconstitutional for them to do so, meaning the very federal courts they're trying to rein in will be the ones knocking them down.
Which may be exactly what they want, for all I know - more fodder for their fire.
no subject
As someone who's pro-choice but entirely respectful of others' decision not to be, I don't have any problem with this. Pharmacists aren't bound by any oath or law saying that they must dispense any drugs to any person with a prescription. The pharmacist I heard about told his bosses that he would not fill such prescriptions, and they were okay with that. Businesses and individuals should be allowed to act upon their personal ethnics as long as it's in the bounds of the law. From what you've written above, it seems that you have strong ideals - do you like it when you're forced to violate them? I doubt you do, so why should anyone else be forced to do so simply to make you feel better?
(Handicapped children are a terrible emotional and financial drain, see.)
I don't get it. Being able to abort a handicapped child is not okay, but being able to abort any child whatsoever is an absolute right? Isn't one of the big pro-choice arguments that some women cannot handle children emotionally or financially and should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to deal with it?
no subject
I do indeed have strong ideals, and I don't know of a single case where my ideals have endangered another person's heath and well being, infringed on their rights, or interferred in a decision between a doctor and a patient. I would suggest that an idealogy that conflicts with one's profession needs to either be set aside while at work or direct one to a new line of work.
I don't get it. Being able to abort a handicapped child is not okay, but being able to abort any child whatsoever is an absolute right?
The point here was the absuridity of a third (and fourth and fifth and nth) party deciding what criteria must be present in order for a woman to be able to have control over her own body can be drawn to frightening extremes. The example cited above is based on the moral precept that mentally handicapped people don't have souls.
The bottom line is that women have a right (in the US, for now) make decisions about their pregnancies without the intervention of other people's religious beliefs.