DISQUS

stryder · 1 year ago

Denver a venue to re-ignite the progressive reform? Conservatives resurgent

An abortion ruling shows how the balance has shifted

Apr 19th 2007 - WASHINGTON, DC - The Economist

The Supreme Court handed America's beleaguered conservatives a rare victory on April 18th, by upholding a ban on an abortion procedure that is known, in medical circles, as D&X; (dilation and extraction), and to most other people as "partial-birth abortion".

The court ruled, by a majority of five to four, that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which Congress passed in 2003, does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. In so doing, it overruled no fewer than six federal courts; it also reversed an earlier Supreme Court decision, made in 2000, declaring Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion unconstitutional. The decision suggests that, although the court continues to uphold the central principle of Roe v Wade, which legalised abortion in 1973, it favours more restrictions.

George Bush's two court appointees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, joined the long-running conservative duo, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, much to the relief of conservatives, who worry about Republican appointees turning into liberals once they reach the court. (One of George Bush senior's appointees, David Souter, is one of the most reliable liberal votes on the bench.) Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a vigorous opinion for the liberal minority (Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and Mr Souter himself). The decision was "alarming", she said, and failed to take previous court decisions seriously.

The breakdown of the vote suggests that Anthony Kennedy is replacing Sandra Day O'Connor as the court's swing vote. Mr Kennedy argued in the majority opinion that the act's opponents "have not demonstrated that the act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of the relevant cases."

The ruling provoked a firestorm. Abortion-rights opponents claimed that it ended an abhorrent procedure. Abortion-rights supporters argued that it could threaten most abortions that are performed after 12 weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood immediately put out a call for donations. The presidential candidates lined up in predictable order, with Hillary Clinton talking of "an erosion of our constitutional rights" and John McCain saying he was "happy".

The decision is a vindication of the social conservatives' "slow squeeze" strategy on abortion. At first they focused on overturning Roe. Then they decided to adopt a more gradualist approach. They hedged the right to choose with various restrictions, such as parental notification, and concentrated on winning over middle-of-the-road voters. They have scored a particular success with "partial-birth abortion", a grisly technique that involves partially removing the fetus from a woman's womb and then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

The decision shows how much Mr Bush has done for social conservatives. His appointment of Messrs Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court (both were nominated in 2005) may have shifted the balance of the court for a generation. The Bush era is set to last well beyond 2009 so far as one of America's most venerable branches of government is concerned.

Observer · 1 year ago

Who nominated the judge has nothing to do with it In your post, you should have described the process by which the chief judge is picked, which is based on a combination of seniority, age of the judge, and the judge's desire to serve as chief.  The process has nothing to do with who nominated the judge to the bench, as your post implies.

Also, does the chief judge of the 10th Circuit really appoint magistrate judges, as you claim?  I didn't think the appellate court had magistrate judges? (what purpose would they serve?).  I believe the district court (or the chief thereof) selects the magistrate judges who work at the district court level.