October 02, 2003

House passes partial birth abortion ban

I told those Green Party bitches that this was gonna happen. I fucking TOLD THEM!

"But the women's movement is too strong - people will fight back," they cried. Where the hell is that pansy-ass Nader now? Huh? Great political strategy MORON. "We don't think the democrats are liberal enough so we'll put Satan in charge instead. That'll show em!"

Back in good ol' fall of 2000, I used to tell people that I might vote for Nader in 2004 if he built up enough of a following to be a legitamate candidate. But he could have 90% of the nation on his side now and I would fuck Rush Limbaugh before giving Nader my vote. He never gave a shit about this nation. If he had, he wouldn't have thrown us to the fucking wolves.

Wow, for a barren Lesbian with no chance in hell of an unwanted pregnancy, abortion politics sure piss me the fuck off.

Posted by j*2the*olie at October 2, 2003 03:00 PM

wow, you're mad. i'm confused though how nader is responsible for the house passing a partial birth abortion ban.

Posted by: gene on October 2, 2003 04:42 PM

He's not responsible for the house passing the ban, he's responsible for the fact that Bush is in office to sign it (which he most definately will). Clinton vetoed it twice and I'm confident that Gore would have done the same.

Posted by: Jolie on October 2, 2003 06:17 PM

there is no I in 'team', and there is no A in 'definitely'.

this public service announcement has been brought to you by your local association of surly linguists.

Posted by: dianna on October 2, 2003 11:37 PM

there's no "we" in "team" either. but there's plenty of tea. just something to think aboot.

Posted by: holohan on October 2, 2003 11:39 PM

also, there may be a valid constitutional challenge to the ban, not on privacy grounds but based on the commerce clause. i don't see how congress has the authority to pass such a ban, which would clearly regulate the conduct of private healthcare providers. this is something that falls into a state's police power. oddly enough, rehnquist is the court's major proponent of limited commerce clause power, so he should be one of the stronger voices against this if it ever gets to the Court. and if scalia, also in favor of limiting congress' power, sides with the government on this one he'd no longer be able to accuse the "liberals" on the court of applying a different standard to anything involving abortion, since he'd be doing the same thing in ignoring the constitutional limits of congressional power in order to uphold a piece of legislation he'd be otherwise in favor of.

Posted by: holohan on October 3, 2003 07:01 AM

brilliant. i'd love to see the fight over that one if it does get to the supreme court.

mmmm... tea. i wouldn't mind joining a team that involved tea.

Posted by: dianna on October 3, 2003 11:27 AM

I'm with you, j. For a while I was very pro-Nader because of the seatbelt thing and the enivronment thing and the integrity & intelligence things, but once I heard about his campaign to put satan in the white house i had to vote for Bush instead. I mean, Bush may be bad but at least he's not pro-satan, for god's sake.

Posted by: didofoot on October 3, 2003 12:17 PM

I feel like an idiot... I thought Nader was all about putting *satin* in the White House, which would have given the place, if not the entire executive branch, a smoother, sexier feel.

Posted by: sean on October 4, 2003 06:36 PM

firstly, we all know that partial birth abortion" isn't an actual medical term; it's just a bunch of pro-life propaganda. i feel that not enough people know this. secondly: jolie, darlin', i feel you on those green party bitches. i laid it out with full lung power back in 2000 and they didn't listen to a goddamn word. i hate people who try and operate as if we lived in an actual, fuctioning democracy and hide behind virtuous idealism. fuck those bitches. and finally,
the problem with using the commerce clause as a constitutional challenge is that it's pretty ambiguous and the Court has changed its mind on the scope of federal authority on numerous occasions. at times, because X falls within federal commerce clause authority, state laws are preempted and have no effect even if the feds have not yet spoken. at other times they say that states can regulate anyway, but when the feds talk then the states are preempted. laws work the way politics want them to. and politics are not on our side this time, methinks.

Posted by: ahe on October 7, 2003 04:31 PM

maybe people voted for nader because they wanted him to win. that's why i voted for larry flint.

anyway, while commerce clause doctrine, like all areas of constitutional law, is fuzzy at best, curbing congressional power under the commerce clause has definitely been one of rehnquist's pet projects. keep in mind also that the court struck down a state ban on "partial birth abortion" a short while ago. i would think they'd give the federal version less deference given the commerce clause concerns.

Posted by: holohan on October 7, 2003 06:36 PM

didn't the court strike carhart in nebraska mostly because their ban failed to include a provision/exception for the mother's health?

i wouldn't say "curbing congressional power" under the commerce clause has definitely been one of rehnquist's pet projects because that makes is appear as if rehnquist's goal is to keep congress in check as opposed to adhering to strict constitutional interpretation--but he has been intstrumental in decisions (i.e. lopez, morrison) which show that some of the lawmakers can't tell their asses from a hole in the ground. doesn't it piss you how how congress has been using the commerce clause to like...get people to mow their lawns? i swear to god they use commerce clause powers for everything. amber alert? commerce clause. it sucks because there's that whole "oh, well their heart was in the right place" thing, but...yeah, constitutional law is totally fuzzy and it kinda sucks. man, i'm glad i'm not in law school.

Posted by: ahe on October 8, 2003 09:08 AM

morrison and lopez were both represent contractions of commerce clause power when viewed the context of the cases that came before them. earlier courts granted congress much more leeway in using the commerce clause power the rehnquist court has. the fact that this may or may not represent a legitimate interpretation of the constitution doesn't change the fact that CC power used to be broader than it is now.

also, since conservative justices tend to favor restrictions on congressional power, anyone likely to be appointed by bush would have a hard time letting congress get away with a federal ban on a medical procedure. unless, of course, they could somehow tie it to homeland security.

Posted by: holohan on October 9, 2003 11:36 AM