Monday, June 25, 2007

Women's Rights Disallowed by Supreme Court

From the present make-up of the Supreme Court, with the dominance of justices who are opposed to women's rights, it is hardly surprising that the most recent finding of that court is in favor of the ability of Life Begins as Conception faction to influence elections. The weakening of election controls that seek to steer power to the voter is a side-effect, and a very bad one.

The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

The decision could lead to a bigger role for corporations, unions and other interest groups in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
(snip)
On Monday, Justice David Souter, joined by his three liberal colleagues, said in his dissent that the court "effectively and, unjustifiably, overruled" the earlier decision.


This is a court that has a very biased attitude, and its decisions are determined not by judicial considerations but by its majority's prejudices. That a woman cannot be an independently functioning individual has become quite obvious in their record.

The Department of Justice, the Supreme Court, the executive branch, are under the control of a dangerous faction that wants to rule without laws, and without lawful grounds. We need to get them out of office as soon as possible.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Anonymous Nora said...

Not to mention the surprising number of precedents they're overruling. Didn't Alito and Roberts swear during their confirmation hearings that they took stare decisis seriously and that they wouldn't lightly overrule settled precedent?

Or is that just like Thomas' absurd statement at his confirmation hearing (which I will NEVER forget, and which should have disqualified him from further consideration then and there) that he had never even DISCUSSED Roe v. Wade and held no opinion whatsoever on it.

I guess you can lie under oath to the Senate at a confirmation hearing without consequences. Perhaps that's what has Republicans and their apologists confused with respect to Scooter Libby; they've seen proof that lying under oath means nothing.

3:02 PM  
Blogger Dirk Gently said...

precedents? we don't need no stinking precedents!

btw, ruth, tag, you're it

5:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home