John Roberts' Court Requires MO Taxpayers to Provide Abortion

[DockHoilman]

Well, it has happened; the John Roberts-led court is opening the door to provide a greater opportunity to kill our children.

First we must applaude Justice Clarence Thomas. Who "acting alone, granted the temporary stay pending a further decision by himself or the full court." But then, John Roberts and the full court got involved. Over-riding the State of Missouri, without comment, and without recorded dissent, the high court rejected Missouri's request to put on hold a federal judge's order requiring that prison authorities transport the inmate to a St. Louis clinic for an abortion.

Thus, in it's very first action under John Roberts, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Government has must require that Missiouri taxpayer money must be used against the will of the people of the state, to assist in the killing of her children. Dear Lord, please help us!

References

15 October - Supreme Court halts prison abortion order

17 October - Supreme court allows abortion for Missouri inmate

[rcdavis]

Originally Posted by DockHoilman

Well, it has happened; the John Roberts-led court is opening the door to provide a greater opportunity to kill our children.

First we must applaude Justice Clarence Thomas. Who "acting alone, granted the temporary stay pending a further decision by himself or the full court." But then, John Roberts and the full court got involved. Over-riding the State of Missouri, without comment, and without recorded dissent, the high court rejected Missouri's request to put on hold a federal judge's order requiring that prison authorities transport the inmate to a St. Louis clinic for an abortion...

Do we have specifics here as to Robert's participation? Anyone have a link to the ruling itself?

-R

[Areopagus]

Originally Posted by DockHoilman

the high court rejected Missouri's request to put on hold a federal judge's order requiring that prison authorities transport the inmate to a St. Louis clinic for an abortion.

....Missiouri taxpayer money must be used against the will of the people of the state, to assist in the killing of her children. Dear Lord, please help us!

References

15 October - Supreme Court halts prison abortion order

17 October - Supreme court allows abortion for Missouri inmate

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule...w&event_id=236


http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...i?ArtNum=38305

"Roe v. Wade is not the law of the land because, in the nature of things, a court opinion cannot be law. Second, it is not law because, by definition, a court order cannot be law. Finally, Roe v. Wade is not the law of the land because it is not the law of the Constitution. For these three reasons, the United States Supreme Court did not - indeed could not - legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade."

"Marshall concluded that the Constitution as it is written is superior to the courts, as well as to Congress and the President: . . .The particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Id."

"Jefferson was right. Article II, Section 3 states that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It does not say that he take care that "court orders" be faithfully executed. A court order is not the law of the land; only the Constitution and laws conforming to it are. Nothing that Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison undermines Jefferson's claim. If a legislative act "repugnant to the constitution, is void," as Marshall penned in Marbury, then a court order repugnant to that constitution is void."

God has already helped us.
Christians, conservatives, Republicans...all pro-lifers have simply rejected that help, and seem to be content to continue doing so for the indefinite future.

The Constitutional solutions are simple and plain, but those actions are avoided, and in their place are vague political promises, and prayers for an answer that has existed since the founding.

[Camp Director]

This decision is surprising because...?

I know, many of us here predicted just this, both in writing and simply in our own private thoughts.

What's interesting about it though is that it is an unsigned opinion and no specific tally of who voted how. It's interesting because of the Harriet Miers debacle. Wouldn't the Chief Justice want to issue a signed opinion if he had sided with the pro-life cause since Miers is being touted as being in the mold of a Bush-Roberts-Scalia-Thomas... blah, blah, blah?

It seems to my muddled and confused way of thinking that a signed opinion with Roberts name on the correct side of the issue would be a boost for Miers over against her "conservative" critics without her having to do anything except stand behind the rapidly crumbling "trust the president" defensive wall. After all, Bush appointed Roberts! But of course this strategy would only work if Roberts had voted the correct way on this decision. If he did not there would be every reason to hide that fact behind an unsigned opinion because of the opposite effect on public opinion. The revelation that Roberts voted to kill a baby at taxpayers expense in violatiuon of MO law would be the final breach of the "trust the president" wall of sound coming from the Republican amen chorus on TV, radio and in print. It would reveal that those who went way out on a limb to support Roberts that they were coaxed onto a dead and rotten branch connected to a hollowed out tree.

Raises many questions, doesn't it?

Chuck
Executive Director
Camp American