Ugh

[lapietra]

Originally posted by Smartypants
Actually, there's another VERY big difference.

WAIT! First I just have to comment: Coffee, you live in the Bay Area and you were able to avoid ever HEARING about this!? I am AMAZED.

OK, now:

It's true that this was made a bigger deal than other domestic homicides (I think men murdering their wives is the most common form of murder in the US) due to the fact that this was a photogenic couple, but that's not the whole story. The other reason, and we will see where this leads to, is that this was a test case to see if someone could be convicted of a double murder for killing a pregnant woman. The guilty verdict for the murder of the fetus here opens the same door that choice advocates were concerned the so-called "late-birth" abortion ban would have opened had it passed.

Once an unborn fetus is declared a full-fledged person with the same rights of government protection as a breathing, post-natal human being, the anti-choice forces are going to start applying that yardstick to every fertilized cell, every fetal stem cell, every "victim" of morning-after pills, etc., etc.

Granted, Ms. Peterson's fetus was on the brink of birth at the time of the crime, but every little crack that the religious right can find to put a wedge in to widen with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, is a step towards a return to the Dark Days prior to 1973.

What's more, if THIS is the route that social conservatives takes to reverse Roe, then women who need to break the law to terminate their pregnancies, and their doctors, won't just be charged with a minor crime; the charge will be murder in first degree.

I understand that women were the most eager to throw Peterson's ass into San Quentin or the gas chamber, identifying with the wife and her victimization by an arrogant man, but all women should take a deep breath and ponder the consequences of today's verdict concerning the "murder" of her "baby" and whether, in fact, it was pursued with such high-profile rigor by men who pose a greater overall threat to American women.

-- And that again, is why such a big deal was made of using this "perfect" couple as an example. Roe's identity was kept a secret not just to protect her privacy, but because Norma McCovey, the real "Jane Roe," was poor and uneducated, opening her case to prejudicial treatment. You can be certain that the effort and cost would not have been expended here if Scott Peterson was a big fat white-trash slob who sat around in a wife-beater, and Laci worked at the local Dairy Queen and was missing her two front teeth. If that were so, chances are the jury wouldn't have seen her unborn child as human enough to convict.

Notice that the papers refer to the unborn child by the name it would have had had it been born. He has in no uncertain terms been made a "martyr for the cause."

Damn, Smarty. You don't rest on your laurels, do you? You just keep proving your name, over and over and over...
Thanks for this... although now I'm very anxious...

[Smartypants]

Originally posted by lapietra
Thanks for this... although now I'm very anxious...

Wha? You weren't already very anxious? I don't think I'm being paranoid here. This country is headed for some VERY bad times.

Case in point, check THIS out (not right on topic but somewhat related, as it eals with the law of the land) then go take a valium:

-----

November 12, 2004


Ashcroft Condemns Judges Who Question Bush

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS




Filed at 3:12 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal judges are jeopardizing national security by issuing rulings contradictory to President Bush's decisions on America's obligations under international treaties and agreements, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday.

In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called "a profoundly disturbing trend'' among some judges to interfere in the president's constitutional authority to make decisions during war.

"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war,'' Ashcroft said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers' group.

The Justice Department announced this week it would seek to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robertson in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who the government contends was Osama bin Laden's driver.

Robertson halted Hamdan's trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rejecting the Bush administration's position that the Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war do not apply to al-Qaida members because they are not soldiers of a true state and do not fight by international norms.

Without mentioning that case specifically, Ashcroft criticized rulings he said found "expansive private rights in treaties where they never existed'' that run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution.

"Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people,'' Ashcroft said.

During his successful re-election campaign, Bush repeatedly promised to appoint judges who would adhere to strict interpretations of the Constitution. In addition to numerous lower courts, Bush is likely to appoint at least one and perhaps several justices to the Supreme Court during the next four years.

The administration lost a crucial legal battle this year when a divided Supreme Court determined the president lacks the authority to hold terror suspects classified as enemy combatants indefinitely with no access to lawyers or the ability to challenge their detention.

Ashcroft intends to remain as attorney general until his nominated successor, Alberto Gonzales, is confirmed by the Senate.
###

[lapietra]

Originally posted by Smartypants


"Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people,'' Ashcroft said.

Holy ****. This reminds me of the time, a number of years ago, when I was reading something rather interesting; I didn't know who the author was, but they were making some *very* interesting points... and then it was all horribly, monstrously wrong. The logic took a bizarre turn and went somewhere dangerous and ugly. Turned out it was an excerpt from something Hitler wrote.

At what point do we leave the country? At what point did the Germans who realized down which deadly road their country was headed escape and settle in other countries? Should I do it despite the fact I don't think I can afford it? Can I afford not to? You're right - scary times ahead.

[Smartypants]

Well, we can leave (it has occurred to me to do a little apartment hunting when I'm in Paris next month), or we can stay and fight.

Here's the problem with the coming civil war: The arrogant elitist Blue army may be smarter, but the ignorant bumpkin Red army HAS ALL THE GUNS!!!

[lapietra]

HAH! Oh well...

Well - if you find an apartment in Paris - promise me you'll rent me your place in SF... pretty please? *hopeful face* I promise to take beautiful care of it

erm... *ahem*.... because I would stay and fight - from SF. and stuff.

[madasacutsnake]

At what point did the Germans who realized down which deadly road their country was headed escape and settle in other countries?

Off the topic.

The ordinary german lived in terrible fear during Hitler's reign. By the time the majority had figured it out, it was too late to leave. Christine Bielenberg wrote some interesting books about life for the average german in those times.

OK. Do go on.

[trisherina]

...because what you "know" is generally what you get from the media, as my dad once pointed out.

[madasacutsnake]

Here's the problem with the coming civil war: The arrogant elitist Blue army may be smarter, but the ignorant bumpkin Red army HAS ALL THE GUNS!!!

Serves you gun control pinkos right.

I love this. Here the Labour Party is the liberal party and is represented by the colour red which is somehow far more appropriate, don't you think? And the Liberal Party is the conservative party........

[lapietra]

Originally posted by madasacutsnake
Off the topic.

The ordinary german lived in terrible fear during Hitler's reign. By the time the majority had figured it out, it was too late to leave. Christine Bielenberg wrote some interesting books about life for the average german in those times.

OK. Do go on.

Not so much off topic - it wasn't a hypothetical question. I ask myself this at least once a day, lately.

I'll look for Bielenberg's books... some days I think I should just pull up the old tent-spikes and seek my fortune elsewhere, you know?

[sparticle]

Originally posted by lapietra
Not so much off topic - it wasn't a hypothetical question. I ask myself this at least once a day, lately.

You, me and about half the country.

In fact, almost EXACTLY half the country.

Unfortunately, not enough of a margin more than half the country, or we wouldn't be asking ourselves at all. Feh.

[Audreyvgs]

Originally posted by Smartypants
Actually, there's another VERY big difference.


Once an unborn fetus is declared a full-fledged person with the same rights of government protection as a breathing, post-natal human being, the anti-choice forces are going to start applying that yardstick to every fertilized cell, every fetal stem cell, every "victim" of morning-after pills, etc., etc.

It's the first thing I thought of. The foot in the door.

[madasacutsnake]

Originally posted by Smartypants


-----

November 12, 2004


Ashcroft Condemns Judges Who Question Bush

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS




Filed at 3:12 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal judges are jeopardizing national security by issuing rulings contradictory to President Bush's decisions on America's obligations under international treaties and agreements, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday.

In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called "a profoundly disturbing trend'' among some judges to interfere in the president's constitutional authority to make decisions during war.

"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war,'' Ashcroft said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers' group.

The Justice Department announced this week it would seek to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robertson in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who the government contends was Osama bin Laden's driver.

Robertson halted Hamdan's trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rejecting the Bush administration's position that the Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war do not apply to al-Qaida members because they are not soldiers of a true state and do not fight by international norms.

Without mentioning that case specifically, Ashcroft criticized rulings he said found "expansive private rights in treaties where they never existed'' that run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution.

"Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people,'' Ashcroft said.

During his successful re-election campaign, Bush repeatedly promised to appoint judges who would adhere to strict interpretations of the Constitution. In addition to numerous lower courts, Bush is likely to appoint at least one and perhaps several justices to the Supreme Court during the next four years.

The administration lost a crucial legal battle this year when a divided Supreme Court determined the president lacks the authority to hold terror suspects classified as enemy combatants indefinitely with no access to lawyers or the ability to challenge their detention.

Ashcroft intends to remain as attorney general until his nominated successor, Alberto Gonzales, is confirmed by the Senate.
###

Just for you Smartynopants:

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem

[Smartypants]

Originally posted by madasacutsnake
Just for you Smartynopants:

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem

Sorry, but you give me too much credit. Latin is not one of my tongues.

"What principally placates lawyers, avoid with vigor?"

[madasacutsnake]

"The law is whatever takes the boss's fancy", not to be interpreted as meaning that the law was ever Monica Lewinsky.

Doesn't stuff sound better in latin?

[trisherina]

To be fair, Ashcroft is not talking about the courts per se being unaccountable. He is talking about the difference between lawmaking via the electorate voting for its legislators, who then pass laws or amendments (and if you don't like 'em, you don't vote the legislators in again) and the judicial branch, whose job it is supposed to be simply to explain and apply the laws in existence. They aren't supposed to make law. In that fashion, courts are not supposed to be accountable to the people. That's what the legislative branch is supposed to be for, and it is accountable to the electorate.

Norma McCorvey, btw:
In 2003, McCorvey filed suit asking a federal court in Texas to re-open and reconsider Roe v. Wade. She claimed that new scientific and legal developments undermined the decision's validity.

This has the full text of the 1973 decision. It contains a number of full text decisions. The tenor of the page is not pro-choice; don't say I didn't warn you.