The Des Moines Register reports.
The composition of the court has shifted since the 2018 decision, with Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, appointing four of the seven justices....
"Although we overrule (the 2018 decision), and thus reject the proposition that there is a fundamental right to an abortion in Iowa’s Constitution subjecting abortion regulation to strict scrutiny, we do not at this time decide what constitutional standard should replace it," Justice Edward Mansfield wrote in the majority opinion.
पोस्ट्स
४६ टिप्पण्या:
Good for them. If the people of Iowa want "abortion rights" let their representatives vote for it.
Interesting. Some Judges that are doing their job and not legislating from the bench with usurped powers.
New hope for the Democrats in the midterms, being the party of retaining abortion availability.
When some Iowa Supreme Court Justices were recalled from office a few years back, the Left howled.
I imagine the Iowa Legislature, however, could allow abortion.
Bio of the Iowa Chief Justice, "She was born and raised in Harlan, Iowa. She earned her bachelor's degree from Judson College in 1988 and her law degree from Creighton University School of Law in 1991."
Very few people support abortion to the moment of conception. Most people who consider themselves pro-choice have differing ideas about when the choice should be eliminated. Even pro-life people have differing ideas about where the lines should be drawn. It's a political question that should be resolved in the political arena, not a judicial question to be resolved by one or a few people in a courtroom.
Chief Justice Susan Christensen's (Creighton alum) dissent, "Out of respect for stare decisis, I cannot join the majority’s decision to overrule Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds (PPH II), 915 N.W.2d 206 (Iowa 2018), because I do not believe any special
justification “over and above the [majority’s] belief ‘that the precedent was
wrongly decided’ ” warrants such a swift departure from the court’s 2018
decision."
Agree with my fellow Bluejay.
Nominating partisan judges works.
Just like what this term showed in the USSC.
"Nominating non-partisan judges to undo legislation created by liberal policy-oriented judges works."
FIFY
Pass the laws in the legislature, even if you intend to perform lawfare on them in the courts. Or perhaps "even though" you intend to do so.
An equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. Overturning the establishment of an ethical religion that denies women and men's dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities. Recognizing the constitutional rights of "the People" and "our Posterity". Judging the fitness of the wicked solution. Baby steps.
Mark said...
Nominating partisan judges works.
Just like what this term showed in the USSC.
One set of justices seize powers and make laws from the bench.
Another set of Justices relinquish powers and allow legislatures to do their job.
Stupid democrats think the justices that seize un-delegated powers and legislate from the bench are the non-partisan ones.
it WAS amazing, wasn't it?
That the 2018 court thought that the 1857 iowa constitution hadn't just specifically affirmed the 1965 penumbra of a shadow of a right of privacy; but the 1973 escalation to child murder?
The REALLY amazing thing, is that NOT ONLY didn't anyone notice it before 2018; there was actually felony law in iowa BANNING this constitutional right!!!
"Very few people support abortion to the moment of conception."
What? Au contraire, the earlier the better, no?
I live in Iowa and practiced law here for many years.
I can tell you that there has been a seismic shift in Iowa politics over the last few years.
Republicans now control the Governorship, the Iowa Senate, the Iowa House, both U.S. Senate seats, and all but 1 of the U.S. Congressional House seats. Republican Governors have appointed 6 of the 7 Iowa Supreme Court Justices, and the last remaining Democrat appointed Justice (the one who wrote the single dissent in today's abortion case) will retire next month.
Sometimes it seems that there isn't much that we, as conservatives, can do at the national level, as we witness the downward spiral of this great country. But you can make a huge difference at the State level if you field excellent candidates, get organized, and really work hard. Iowa has shown that it can be done.
Wait, Ia Supreme Court, so you mean the Legislature is going to have to....Legislate!??? Say it ain't so!
The opinion is here Most of it is the dissent.
"Very few people support abortion to the moment of conception."
If she says pullout, I recommend listening to her. I for one support her choice to abort up to the moment of conception and would accept him being thrown in jail for continuing.
So it's not just Democrats acting like the decision has already been announced by SCOTUS. Strange.
"Another set of Justices relinquish powers and allow legislatures to do their job."
Oh, you mean like that time when the Republicans tried to get Obama care thrown out.
Because .... allow legislatures to do their job?
Apparently Mark can't tell the difference between Democrat judges finding a "right" that doesn't exist in the Iowa Constitution by creating it out of thin air and sophistry, and arguing that a law passed by a Legislative body violates established rights in a Constitution.
Even if SCOTUs strikes down Roe V wade:
1) State legislatures can legalize abortion
2) State Supreme courts can rule state constitution requires legalized abortion
3) Legislature/voters can amend state constitution
4) Congress can legalize abortion for entire USA
So, what are liberal/leftists getting hysterical for? Just work through Democratic process. Or work through state courts.
Mark said...
"Another set of Justices relinquish powers and allow legislatures to do their job."
**********
What powers are Justices "relinquishing" by NOT acting like legislators?
But you can make a huge difference at the State level if you field excellent candidates, get organized, and really work hard. Iowa has shown that it can be done.
This is something my High School Civics teacher taught us back in the 70's. Wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree, but he did understand the Constitution, and that States had more power than the Federal Govt
Democrats have lost control of state legislatures, Governorship's, Mayor offices, etc.
Soros's play has exploded in his face, the DA Gambit is over. More state and local offices are about to go R, with the Disaster resulting from Democrat agenda items.
Uh oh. The innocent babies win another one.
Blogger Mark said...
Nominating partisan judges works.
Just like what this term showed in the USSC.
You mean nominating justices that don't know what a woman is even though she is one ?
"Soros's play has exploded in his face,"
Soros's play is to destabilize society for his own financial gains, in this his play has definitely continued to succeed, even if this particular approach to it will move on to something else.
iowan2 said...
but he did understand the Constitution, and that States had more power than the Federal Govt
Serious (about as Serious as questions can be) Questions:
How many States are currently controlled by Republicans? Are we up to 34?
If/When, the States call a Constitutional Convention? What are the Democrats going to do?
( i mean, BESIDES calling it an "insurrection"? )
My guess is: Be very, Very, VERY, Unhappy
Bonus Round Serious Questions:
Does a New Constitution have to go to the voters? Or can it go to the State Legislatures?
Answer: Whatever the New Constitution SAYS
What role Does the old Supreme Court (or old Legislatures) have?
Answer: Whatever the New Constitution SAYS
WHAT are the limitations are WHAT can be done by a Constitutional Convention?
Answer: Whatever The Army allows
WHO does the US Army report to, in the event of a New Constitution?
Answer: THAT is THE QUESTION
The outcome of the War of the Southern Rebellion caused the 1788 Constitution to transform and leave the States’ power over the Federal Government into weak talking points. If that offends you, then blame Grant and Sherman Armies for invading 13 States and making them into occupied colonies.
rhhardin said...
New hope for the Democrats in the midterms, being the party of retaining abortion availability
What is the hole you live in?
Democrats aren't "the party of retaining abortion availability", they're "the party of abortion until birth, or maybe a few hours past that".
See Tim Ryan in the Ohio Senate race.
Which isn't a winner with voters
Mark said...
"Another set of Justices relinquish powers and allow legislatures to do their job."
Oh, you mean like that time when the Republicans tried to get Obama care thrown out.
Mark, I've got a friendly hint for you.
There's a large space of options in between "judges impose whatever they want on the People" and "judges let the Legislature do whatever it wants to the People".
In part of that space is "Judges impose Constitutionally created limits on the government, and otherwise get out of the way"
This is called "obeying your Oath of Office".
The US Constitution, and the IA Constitution, both say absolutely nothing about Abortion.
Therefore the honest judges "gets out of thw way" on that one.
The US Constitution, however, does not grant the Federal Government a "generalized police power".
Which means the US Government can't force you to buy a product as a price of existing. Like, oh, "health insurance".
So the honest Justices said "ObamaCare grabs powers that are not the domain of the Federal government"
The lying shits ignored the US Constitution, and let ObamaCare be inflicted on us.
If you really can't understand these basic principles, I pity you
Mark paints himself into a corner.
"Even if SCOTUs strikes down Roe V wade:
....
4) Congress can legalize abortion for entire USA"
Not so fast there! They could certainly try to do so (and are trying), but then the law has to fall under one of the limited and enumerated powers of the federal government. Query whether the old standby, "interstate commerce," would work; that approach is wearing out its welcome. ObamaCare, for instance, passed muster as a tax, not as a regulation of interstate commerce.
So, abortion regulation is within what Federal enumerated power? If none, then it's a power reserved to the states. Which would mean some states would allow it liberally, while others might restrict it tightly. With abortion drugs now available and very hard to regulate, regulating it within the period of time in which the drugs work (11 weeks?) will be nearly impossible. So the issue will be mainly about later abortions (second and third trimester). Which is where, in most places, the politics starts to go against the liberal left; most people don't like to think about babies coming out in pieces.
Query whether the old standby, "interstate commerce," would work
At least that would be a bit more honest. Abortion is BIG $$$$$$$.
I have always been under the impression the those who wrote the Constitution expected Congress to do its job. Not the courts.
Let it work its way thru the States, and the Congress. Yes it's loud, unruly, and very messy. It was meant to be that way.
Abortion is obviously one of the most divisive issues. So better to hash it out in public, take stands and vote for or against.
Congress always preferred to do anything but their job, and let Judges do it for them.
I'm also under the impression that if men who wrote the Constitution came back to DC tomorrow morning, by the afternoon, they would have hanged most of Congress, the FBI, and the DOJ, for starters.
I don't know if this Iowa decision was written before the leak. However, the SCOTUS confidential leak is the best thing that could have happened to pro-lifers. It may have signaled a permission to say unpopular stuff out loud. Kind of like when Trump became president and the conversation about our broken immigration took center stage. The fear of retribution/name calling was damped if not completely removed.
Trans issues are providing cover against pro-lifers. That's another unexpected blessing in disguise. Like the old saying goes; careful what you wish for...
"I have always been under the impression the those who wrote the Constitution expected Congress to do its job. Not the courts. "
In the old days of 1790 you had to fight to live. The founders thought that representatives would be testosteroned 30 year olds doing their public service on their way to better things.
Now we have the enfattened snob-gobblers who will never pass a law unless it creates a federal regulations making hell that allows congress to both criticize and take credit for all things.
I asked one of the sacred 435 why she voted for a bill to do x, she said, why federal regulations say you have to do x! I had to vote that way! Brain privileged people know better but the average guy is below average now.
Rusty said...
Mark paints himself into a corner.
***********
I'm sure he'll tell us that it was "satire" we are too dumb to "get".
rcocean said...So, what are liberal/leftists getting hysterical for? Just work through Democratic process.
You answered your own question.
Whether one views it as preferable for courts or legislatures to make these decisions is beside the point. The question is what does the constitution actually say? I've not read the Iowa constitution, let alone studied it, so I don't know. But I've carefully studied the US constitution (originally taught by one of the very best -- Wm. Van Alstyne) and can say with confidence that any federal constitutional abortion right has been fabricated by the Court, not acknowledged by it.
I'm sure we made him do it.
Mike Petrik said...
Whether one views it as preferable for courts or legislatures to make these decisions is beside the point. The question is what does the constitution actually say? I've not read the Iowa constitution, let alone studied it, so I don't know.
well, I'VE just spent the last 10 minutes reading and studying our Iowa Constitution;
and Here is what i've found, that could have possibly been considered to be affirming the right of a woman to murder her unborn children
Sec. 18. Eminent domain — drainage ditches and levees. Private property shall not be
taken for public use without just compensation first being made, or secured to be made to
the owner thereof, as soon as the damages shall be assessed by a jury, who shall not take into
consideration any advantages that may result to said owner on account of the improvement
for which it is taken.
The general assembly, however, may pass laws permitting the owners of lands to construct
drains, ditches, and levees for agricultural, sanitary or mining purposes across the lands of
others, and provide for the organization of drainage districts, vest the proper authorities
with power to construct and maintain levees, drains and ditches and to keep in repair all
drains, ditches, and levees heretofore constructed under the laws of the state, by special
assessments upon the property benefited thereby. The general assembly may provide by
law for the condemnation of such real estate as shall be necessary for the construction and
maintenance of such drains, ditches and levees, and prescribe the method of making such
condemnation
traditionalguy said...
The outcome of the War of the Southern Rebellion caused the 1788 Constitution to transform and leave the States’ power over the Federal Government into weak talking points. If that offends you, then blame Grant and Sherman Armies for invading 13 States and making them into occupied colonies.
___________________________________
I gotta say, I’m a bit confused here.
We’re these “thirteen states” engaged in an illegal rebellion? If so, what’s the objection to “invading” them to restore law and order?
Or were they part of a distinct foreign country, the Confederate States of America? If so, international law authorized the United States to invade said foreign country.
Please clarify.
Having looked through the decision, I don’t see it as being a very big deal. Planned Parenthood argued that the 24-hour waiting period law was unconstitutional under a 2018 decision. The state argued that the 2018 decision was flawed, and should be overturned. The majority of the court agreed, and overturned the 2018 decision.
But now the whole issue goes back to the lower courts to be litigated, and no one knows whether the 24-hour law will be found constitutional or unconstitutional. I don’t see it as worth getting excited about.
Stephen St. Onge said...
I gotta say, I’m a bit confused here.
We’re these “thirteen states” engaged in an illegal rebellion?
I don't know.
Have you never seen 1776? To quote Ben Franklin "rebellion is always illegal in the 3rd person 'their rebellion.' It's only in the 1st person 'our rebellion' that rebellion becomes legal"
Does the US Constition foreclose States from leaving? I dont' see anything explicit in it, either way. Do you>?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा