Judicial Activism

Three terrible people have reversed a decision that would have allowed a significant number of clinics that perform abortions to remain open in the state of Texas.

The order, authored by Judge Priscilla Owen, grants a temporary stay of a lower court judge’s decision blocking a provision of Texas law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in order to perform abortions at clinics. [...]

Judge Owen, the author of Wednesday’s opinion, is among the most staunchly anti-abortion judges in the country. In 2000, when both Judge Owen and future United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were justices on the Texas Supreme Court, then-Justice Owen authored a dissenting opinion seeking to make abortions more difficult to obtain in Texas. Gonzales responded to Owen in a separate concurring opinion that labeled Owen’s proposed resolution of the case an “unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

To be honest it’s hard to form a cogent or coherent response to this. It’s so infuriating as to be breathtaking it its naked hostility to the rights of women. It’s an affront to human decency.

In my mind all I want to do is yell expletives in their faces.

According to RH Reality Check, about one-third of the state’s clinics will be forced to close today. Score one for the War on Women.

This entry was posted in Abortion, Assholery, War On Women and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • dbtheonly

    Ashby,

    I’m afraid I don’t see where you’re coming from.

    The law, like it or don’t, was passed by the Texas Legislature.

    You don’t like the law.

    So are you condemning the original Judge for staying the actions of the Legislature? Or are you saying that lifting the stay & allowing the law to proceed is somehow “Judicial Activism”? Or are you suggesting that it’s okay for unelected Judges to throw out laws you oppose? What do you do when those same Judges throw out a law of which you approve? See In Re: Citizens United.

    It strikes me that your problem is with the Legislature.

    Judges should strike down laws only when they are clearly unconstitutional. That may yet happen here. But I assert that Judges should not legislate their beliefs.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Judges should strike down laws only when they are clearly unconstitutional.

      Yes, and that is what original judge did. This is just a step along the path to the US Supreme Court. Of course, the goal of the anti-women’s rights side is to use this as a wedge to get Roe v. Wade overturned. That’s about the only way this law could survive a court challenge. If the SCOTUS doesn’t wish to overturn Roe, then this law is DOA.

      • dbtheonly

        D_C,

        It’s the forum in which this is to be fought. This law (& so much more) hangs on one or two men in the SCOTUS. That’s not how this government was meant to function. We need to start trying out how to fix it.

        • D_C_Wilson

          The only way to do that is to stop appointing blind ideologues to the SCOTUS.

    • Brutlyhonest

      Are you being intentionally obtuse? Or do you really not get the snark of using the wingnuts’ crying about activist judges, when they disagree, against them?

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      It’s not uncommon for courts to block a law or part of a law from being implemented when its constitutionality is being questioned judicially. The judge who “stayed” the block is what Ashby is angry about and rightly so. The original judge properly blocked because that’s standard procedure in cases like this (correct me if I’m wrong here you attorneys out there) but the second judge “stayed” the block out of pure ideology. That IS Judicial Activism.

      When I heard this on the radio, I was livid. If there are any pregnant women in TX needing a D&C who are rapidly approaching the late term deadline, then this “stay” really screws them over since the case won’t be heard again until next year (Jan or Feb?).

    • JMAshby

      Are you kidding me?

      Part of the law was struck down for being unconstitutional.

      Evidence suggests the appeals court judges that reinstated it last night did so only because they’re staunchly anti-abortion conservatives. Not because of merit.

      The headline and charge of judicial activism was a jab at conservatives, but this case is more fitting of that label than it typically is when someone makes that charge.

      You’re basically siding with the most anti-abortion judge in the country for overturning a ruling that part of the law was, indeed, unconstitutional.

      And since when do I approve of citizens united?

      • dbtheonly

        Never said you approved of Citizens United. That was a Court striking down a law passed by the Legislature (& some 100 years of precedent). The Texas Apellate Court reversed a Lower Court’s striking down a law passed by the Legislature.

        Now aside from the fact that you disapprove of one outcome & approve the other; what’s the real difference? The Constitution enshrines your political goals & not the Republicans? Judicial Activism is something the other side does; while Judges whose opinions you approve of are wise expounded a of the Constitution?

        Are you really happy in leaving the ultimate decisions in the country to a group of unelected Judges with life time tenure? Remember there are Tea-Party Judges as well.

    • mrbrink

      “You don’t like the law.”

      What the fuck is this shit?

      Neither does the constitution. And while that is being debated, awaiting appeal, or, “due-fucking-process” for the hard of hearing– three wingnut judges, or illegitimate blessings from Republican Jesus and stolen elections past– intervened under the guise of an “emergency stay” of the lower court’s recent opinion. This is like halting the 2000 Florida recount and appointing anti-abortion laws as the interim president of Texas. Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised that you would see this in such narrow terms.

  • Brutlyhonest

    I’m pleased to see you continue to refuse to use their terminology. Thanks.

  • feloniousgrammar

    A judge in Ohio just struck down the mandate for birth control.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obamacare-birth-control-mandate-struck-down-by-appeals-court

    • muselet

      Actually, it was a DC District Court panel (with a majority opinion written by Janice Rogers Brown, and on behalf of all Californians who aren’t completely hatstand, I apologize to the nation for her). It’s not a clean win for anyone and doesn’t exactly strike down the contraception mandate (as a substantive matter, it throws the matter back to the District Court for reconsideration), but if the ruling is upheld it will allow any employer to refuse to provide health insurance that covers just about anything if the employer claims it has a religious objection to that particular “anything.”

      Priscilla Owen isn’t the only Righty judge to have a stupid ruling published this week.

      Things are going to get a whole lot worse for women before they get better. (I swear, Righties heard about The Handmaid’s Tale and thought to themselves, “What a uplifting and utopian story that must be! We should try to make that wonderful world a reality!”)

      –alopecia