live commentary: feinstein vs. roberts
sen. feinstein cites that the precedent for interpretation of stare decisis in the case of roe v. wade is supported by Planned Parenthood v. Casey
she then quotes from the plurality opinion in casey, which defends women's control over their own reproductive rights as essential to the equal treatment (and autonomy) of women.
according to The Center for Reproductive Rights, "Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter co-authored the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that created the 'undue burden' standard for abortion restrictions."
(and have you ever considered the implications of artificial womb technology?)
i begin to ponder gender theory, and it occurs to me that that this is a position with which i believe charlotte perkins gilman would have agreed.
doing some brief research, i find this, from "Women's Worlds: A Bundle of Feminist Utopias," by Reni...
"It would be interesting to investigate whether or not Gilman herself was actually opposed to abortion, or whether she was trying to make her ideas more palatable to (a) larger audience. She was certainly in favor of birth control, which in itself was controversial at the time.)"
also, q.v. my essay: An Analysis of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Short Story, "The Yellow Wallpaper" in Historical & Biographical Context
did i just lose consciousness and hallucinate or did judge roberts manage to use some kind of circular logic to recursively define stare decisis, thereby derailing sen. feinstein's line of questioning about judge roberts position on upholding precedent for roe v. wade?
i'll give him credit for clever legalistic dexterity!
here are some guidelines for interpreting this hearing, in general
Stare Decisis vs. Binding Precedent
here're further attempts to clarify judge roberts' comments
...oh wow, he just said that he refers to the lawbooks, and not the bible or any other religious source for making judicial decisions!
my perspective is hyper-skeptical; but it seems to me... that wasi'chu speaks empty promises with forked tongue!
--
also q.v. my other posts concerning roberts' appointment:
just checking for consensus...
live commentary: specter vs. roberts
Will Technology Force us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?
live commentary: leahy vs. roberts
she then quotes from the plurality opinion in casey, which defends women's control over their own reproductive rights as essential to the equal treatment (and autonomy) of women.
according to The Center for Reproductive Rights, "Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter co-authored the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that created the 'undue burden' standard for abortion restrictions."
(and have you ever considered the implications of artificial womb technology?)
i begin to ponder gender theory, and it occurs to me that that this is a position with which i believe charlotte perkins gilman would have agreed.
doing some brief research, i find this, from "Women's Worlds: A Bundle of Feminist Utopias," by Reni...
"It would be interesting to investigate whether or not Gilman herself was actually opposed to abortion, or whether she was trying to make her ideas more palatable to (a) larger audience. She was certainly in favor of birth control, which in itself was controversial at the time.)"
also, q.v. my essay: An Analysis of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Short Story, "The Yellow Wallpaper" in Historical & Biographical Context
did i just lose consciousness and hallucinate or did judge roberts manage to use some kind of circular logic to recursively define stare decisis, thereby derailing sen. feinstein's line of questioning about judge roberts position on upholding precedent for roe v. wade?
i'll give him credit for clever legalistic dexterity!
here are some guidelines for interpreting this hearing, in general
Stare Decisis vs. Binding Precedent
here're further attempts to clarify judge roberts' comments
...oh wow, he just said that he refers to the lawbooks, and not the bible or any other religious source for making judicial decisions!
my perspective is hyper-skeptical; but it seems to me... that wasi'chu speaks empty promises with forked tongue!
--
also q.v. my other posts concerning roberts' appointment:
just checking for consensus...
live commentary: specter vs. roberts
Will Technology Force us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?
live commentary: leahy vs. roberts