From Transgender Rights to Protecting Abortions: The US Supreme Court By Charles Taylor (Florida)

     Gay marriage in the US constitution, transgender rights … everything in the liberal order our highest court, even with so called conservative judges, readily find. Yes, the founding Fathers supported abortion! Well, not exactly. You see, the highest judges in countries with a written constitution such as the United States and Australia, adopt a form of constitutional interpretation, which eschews the idea that we have that we try and ascertain the meaning of terms that the Founders used. That is dated. Instead, the idea of a “living constitution” is adopted, where the meaning of terms are those decided by judges of today and that’s  because there is no appeal outside of the legal system against anything they decide; consider them legal dictators. So much for democracy! Thus, consider the latest bit of tyranny from our God-like judges on the abortion question:

“The case, over a state law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, is the first abortion ruling since two Trump appointees joined the court. The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the court’s four-member liberal wing but not adopting its reasoning. The chief justice said respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority. The case was the court’s first on abortion since President Trump’s appointments of two justices shifted the court to the right. The Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The law’s supporters said the law protects the health and safety of women seeking abortions, and that the requirements for obtaining admitting privileges helps ensure the competence of doctors. Opponents disputed that, saying that hospitalizations after abortions are rare, that women would receive medical care at hospitals whether their doctors had admitting privileges or not and that abortion providers are often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence. Only two of the five doctors who provide abortions in Louisiana have obtained admitting privileges, one in New Orleans and one in Shreveport. But the Shreveport doctor testified that he could not handle the clinic’s work alone. If the law went into effect, a trial judge concluded, there would be a single doctor in a single clinic, in New Orleans, available to provide abortions in Louisiana.

     As with Australia, and right across the West, the law class are busy at work producing their politically correct decisions. It is a major problem how law can be reformed, since the rot begins in the universities and is a reflection of the general cultural wars.



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Tuesday, 28 June 2022