Sunday, May 31, 2015

Federal Court Rejects Law Limiting Abortion

We only whisper it

On Friday judges in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Idaho law banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The judges argued that the law is unconstitutional because it “categorically bans some abortions before viability.”

Unfortunately abortion is one of the many horrifying fruits of evolutionary thought and this ruling demonstrates how such thought continues to influence American jurisprudence. How, for example, can a law that bans murder be unconstitutional?

The evolutionary justification—that murder is constitutional when the victim is not “viable”—is not true nor is it ethical. With evolution the engine of progress is death, and evolutionary thinking has spawned such horrors as eugenics and abortion. It became fashionable to see the weak, the sick, and the non viable as not worthy of the same rights everyone else enjoys, even the very right to life. In short, it is OK to kill them (see here, here, here, here, here, and here).

As Nietzsche put it, it is the weak “who most undermine life among human beings.” Today we celebrate the murder of the most weak of all—the unborn, for they are a threat to our well-being. As Roe v. Wade lawyer Ron Weddington explained to the newly elected President Bill Clinton, “You can start immediately to eliminate [with inexpensive abortifacients] the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country.” For Weddington it makes sense to murder such babies but, he explained, “we only whisper it.”

This is evolutionary logic at work. The problem here is the Constitution nowhere tells us that one’s rights are contingent on one’s viability. The right to life does not fade with strength, health, wealth or any other status. It would be difficult to imagine a greater perversion of ethics. It is precisely the weak, the powerless and, yes, the non "viable" who need special protections.

The problem is not with our judges. They work hard and do their best to make our system work. The problem is with evolutionary thought.

76 comments:

  1. The 9th Circuit is bound by Supreme Court precedent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Zachriel,

    "The 9th Circuit is bound by Supreme Court precedent."

    How do precedents come to exist, Zachriel?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The original precedent was set by the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, which found that a woman had a right to an abortion until viability. It's the 9th Circuit's duty to enforce the Supreme Court precedent.

      The government charged the woman with a felony. They knew the law was unconstitutional when they passed it, and when they tried to enforce it, were sued. They dropped the case, hoping to avert an adverse ruling, but the 9th Circuit determined that unless they acted, the unchallenged law would act as an undue burden for women seeking an abortion.

      Delete
    2. The viability criteria is arbitrary and subjective.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel,

      "It's the 9th Circuit's duty to enforce the Supreme Court precedent."

      Why, can they not think for themselves?

      Delete
    4. Nic: Why, can they not think for themselves?

      Certainly they can, but there is a process in the U.S. judicial system. The federal circuit courts are under the Supreme Court.

      Delete
    5. Zachriel,

      "The federal circuit courts are under the Supreme Court."

      So then, you're saying they can't think for themselves.

      Delete
    6. Nic: So then, you're saying they can't think for themselves.

      That's like saying a military captain can't think about how to accomplish a mission because they have been ordered to take a hill.

      Appeals courts are bound by precedent, the law, and the Constitution. Nonetheless, judges have to apply these principles to specific cases, including in ambiguous or novel situations. This case was neither ambiguous or novel. The law has already been decided, and individual judges are duty-bound to the law.

      Delete
    7. Zachriel,

      "That's like saying a military captain can't think about how to accomplish a mission because they have been ordered to take a hill."

      You never cease to amaze me with your complete inability to grasp the basic nature of simple concepts. And, as usual, your analogy fails completely.

      The top military commanders which issued the order to take the hill would be analogous to the legislative branch, while the military personnel tasked with carrying out that order would be analogous with the judicial branch.

      Can you see your problem?

      Delete
    8. Your claim was that appeals court judges can't think for themselves. Appeals courts are bound by precedent, the law, and the Constitution. They have to think how to apply these principles to specific cases, but are not free to ignore them.

      Can you see your problem?

      Delete
    9. Zachriel,

      "Your claim was that appeals court judges can't think for themselves."

      You're a real hoot, Zachriel. I never said anything of the sort. I asked you whether or not they could think for themselves. Not at all the same.

      Delete
    10. He already answered you. Of course they can think for themselves, but they are still bound by precedents.


      Delete
    11. Calamity,

      "but they are still bound by precedents."

      They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it. There is a categorical difference.

      If all courts were bound by precedent how would anything ever change?

      Delete
    12. The Law Library of Congress: The decisions of the highest court in a jurisdiction create mandatory precedent that must be followed by lower courts in that jurisdiction. For example, the US Supreme Court creates binding precedent that all other federal courts must follow. Similarly, intermediate appellate courts (such as the federal circuit courts of appeal) create mandatory precedent for the courts below them.
      http://www.loc.gov/law/help/judicial-decisions.php

      Nic: If all courts were bound by precedent how would anything ever change?

      It can change by statute, by amendment, or by the higher court changing its opinion. Meanwhile, the lower court is bound.

      Delete
    13. Zachriel,

      "It can change by statute, by amendment, or by the higher court changing its opinion."

      And how do these eventualities occur, Zachriel?

      Delete
    14. Do you consider yourself to be humanist and promoter of equal rights, Zachriel?

      Delete
    15. Nic: And how do these eventualities occur

      Statutes are passed by the legislature. Amendments are proposed by two-third vote of both legislative chambers, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states.

      As for the judiciary, a court will not overrule its own precedent, and the Supreme Court had stated that it should only be done under very limited circumstances. (In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, they state four factors beyond simple disagreement with the previous ruling.) In the recent case, the lower court is bound, but the case can be appealed. Most of the time, such a case will not be heard by the higher court, unless there is some new issue involved, something that hasn't already decided by previous rulings. However, a higher court can still decide to hear the case on appeal, and then overrule its previous decision. This only happens rarely.

      Consider a simple case. The higher court has ruled that falsely shouting fire in a crowded building is not protected under the First Amendment. Lower courts are bound by this decision, even if they find it wrongly decided. Think what would happen if each and every court could decide the issue individually. It would be legal chaos.

      Instead, lower courts are bound by decisions of higher courts. However, laws can be changed by statute, and constitutions by amendment.

      Eugen: Do you consider yourself to be humanist and promoter of equal rights

      We're rather fond of humans, if that is what you mean. Why, some of our best friends are humans. Consider it a peccadillo, if you like.

      Delete
    16. Very good. You didn't swallow the hook. Tonight you just get the fangulo salute :D

      Delete
    17. Zachriel,

      "Statutes are passed by the legislature. Amendments are proposed by two-third vote of both legislative chambers, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states."

      What could motivate this occurrence?

      "Think what would happen if each and every court could decide the issue individually."

      Of course it would be chaos, but that's not the essence of my argument.

      Delete
    18. Nic: Of course it would be chaos, but that's not the essence of my argument.

      This is the original exchange.

      Z: It's the 9th Circuit's duty to enforce the Supreme Court precedent.

      N: Why, can they not think for themselves?

      To which we responded. Do you have an argument? If you do, you might want to state it clearly.

      Delete
    19. Zachriel,

      In typical Zachriel fashion you have avoided addressing the true issue at hand.

      We'll try one more time, changing the question a little bit. What could cause a supreme court precedent to be reversed?

      Delete
    20. Nic: In typical Zachriel fashion you have avoided addressing the true issue at hand.

      Asking you to clearly state the issue isn't avoiding the issue.

      Nic: What could cause a supreme court precedent to be reversed?

      According to the Supreme Court, there are four factors that could lead to a reversal of its own binding precedent; unworkability of the rule, how reliant the public is on the rule, a change in legal doctrine, and changes in facts. However, the Supreme Court could presumably change its mind for any reason at any time; however, it undermines the courts if there is a lack of stability in the law.

      In any case, the 9th Circuit was bound by the higher court. However, a petitioner can appeal to the Supreme Court, though they will rarely hear a case concerning an issue that has already been decided.

      Delete
    21. Zachriel,

      "However, a petitioner can appeal to the Supreme Court,..."

      Thank you, Zachriel.

      A higher court precedent can be reversed and it can be reversed on appeal from a lower court. That in effect means if there are constitutional and legal grounds to reverse a precedent it can indeed be reversed. Therefore lower courts are not completely bound by precedent. That is the fact I was trying to get you to understand.

      Delete
    22. Nic: A higher court precedent can be reversed and it can be reversed on appeal from a lower court.

      From a lower court, not *by* the lower court.

      Nic: That in effect means if there are constitutional and legal grounds to reverse a precedent it can indeed be reversed.

      Z (yesterday): It can change by statute, by amendment, or by the higher court changing its opinion. Meanwhile, the lower court is bound.

      Nic: Therefore lower courts are not completely bound by precedent.

      Lower courts are bound by precedent of higher courts. Only the higher court can change the precedent, in which case, the lower court is bound by the new precedent.

      What can happen in a lower court is that new facts or situations can be presented that represent an ambiguity. Then the lower court might rule that the precedent should be applied in one way or another. They are not contradicting precedent, though, but trying to apply the rule to the new situation.

      For instance, on the abortion issue, if the age of viability were significantly lowered (it hasn't), then the third trimester rule might be considered obsolete. The lower court might find that an abortion law that lowered the abortion limit accordingly would be consistent with the intent of the original binding precedent, subject to appeal. What the lower court can't do is simply is disregard a binding precedent. If the precedent supports abortion, a judge, even if they find abortion personally repugnant, has to uphold abortion rights, or they simply shouldn't be a judge.

      Delete
    23. Zachriel,

      "From a lower court,..."

      "FROM", is that not what I said?

      "It can change by statute, by amendment, or by the higher court changing its opinion. Meanwhile, the lower court is bound."

      Really, you're like a stuck record.

      "Only the higher court can change the precedent, in which case, the lower court is bound by the new precedent."

      And if the lower courts challenge results in the superior courts reversal?

      "What can happen in a lower court is that new facts or situations can be presented that represent an ambiguity. Then the lower court might rule that the precedent should be applied in one way or another. They are not contradicting precedent, though, but trying to apply the rule to the new situation."

      You're really funny. You're agreeing with me and you don't even realize it. Quite humourous.

      Delete
    24. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    25. Nic: And if the lower courts challenge results in the superior courts reversal?

      A lower court can't directly challenge a precedent. They are argue that the particular circumstances are an exception to the rule, or that the facts have changed since the original ruling. They can't simply say that the higher court was wrong. It's not in their power to do so.

      Nic: You're agreeing with me and you don't even realize it.

      Your claim is that binding precedent is not binding on lower courts. That is simply false. We'll provide the citation again (with emphasis, this time):

      The Law Library of Congress: The decisions of the highest court in a jurisdiction create mandatory precedent that must be followed by lower courts in that jurisdiction. For example, the US Supreme Court creates binding precedent that all other federal courts must follow. Similarly, intermediate appellate courts (such as the federal circuit courts of appeal) create mandatory precedent for the courts below them.
      http://www.loc.gov/law/help/judicial-decisions.php

      Delete
    26. Zachriel,

      "Your claim is that binding precedent is not binding on lower courts."

      I see you're back to your old game of distorting what the other person says in order to suit your agenda. I said precedents are not binding to the point that they cannot be challenged. That's quite different than what you're trying to imply I said.

      Tell me Zachriel, what could result in the superior court reversing its decision? Think carefully before you answer.

      Delete
    27. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    28. Nic: I said precedents are not binding to the point that they cannot be challenged.

      Nic (two days ago): They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it.

      Nic: what could result in the superior court reversing its decision?

      In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Courts stated four factors that could lead to a change in precedent: unworkability of the rule, how reliant the public is on the rule, a change in legal doctrine, and changes in facts.

      We already provided this information above, so not sure why you are asking again.

      Delete
    29. Zachriel,

      "Nic (two days ago): They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it."

      And I stand by that statement. Precedents can be challenged, so it is not binding in the sense of being unassailable.

      "In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Courts stated four factors that could lead to a change in precedent: unworkability of the rule, how reliant the public is on the rule, a change in legal doctrine, and changes in facts."

      So, you're saying these are the only reasons a precedent could be reversed. Is that correct?

      It seems to me that is a very extensive set of conditions which could lead to a change in precedent. Not quite as 'binding' as you want to make it sound. All these factors are very pliable
      and very much open to interpretation further weakening the 'binding' nature of 'precedent'.

      Yet there is another factor which could lead to a higher court reversing itself on a precedent setting judgement.

      Delete
    30. Nic: Precedents can be challenged, so it is not binding in the sense of being unassailable.

      Precedents can be challenged by petitioners, not the lower courts. The lower courts have to rule according to binding precedent. The petitioner can then appeal, and the higher court may or may not hear the case. They will almost never hear such a case unless there is some new issue being raised.

      Nic: So, you're saying these are the only reasons a precedent could be reversed.

      A higher court can presumably reverse its own precedent for whatever reason, but courts also understand that doing so can cause uncertainty in the law, and ultimately undermine the legal system.

      Nic: Yet there is another factor which could lead to a higher court reversing itself on a precedent setting judgement.

      But that wasn't the issue raised. The question was whether the 9th Circuit was bound by precedent set by the higher court. They are.

      Delete
    31. Zachriel,

      "Precedents can be challenged by petitioners, not the lower courts. The lower courts have to rule according to binding precedent. The petitioner can then appeal, and the higher court may or may not hear the case. They will almost never hear such a case unless there is some new issue being raised."

      The petitioners challenge via the lower courts, so you're only playing at semantics. Almost never is not never, so what is your point?

      "A higher court can presumably reverse its own precedent for whatever reason, but courts also understand that doing so can cause uncertainty in the law, and ultimately undermine the legal system."

      And politically motivated decisions, personal bias and legally unsound decisions do not cause uncertainty or undermine the legal system?

      If a higher court decision is motivated by any of these factors it then becomes the duty of lower courts to challenge the precedent.

      Decisions based on such reasoning have become rampant n the Canadian Supreme Court. It is incumbent on the lower Canadian courts to defy these precedents. When individual, unelected judges take it upon themselves to re-write the law to suit their personal agendas, as is happening, the lower courts are duty bound to challenge them. Legislation is the duty of elected officials of government, not judges. The duty of the courts is not to write law, but apply it.

      Delete
    32. Nic: The petitioners challenge via the lower courts, so you're only playing at semantics.

      It's not semantics. The 9th Circuit is bound by Supreme Court precedent. It's what we originally stated, and what you took issue with.

      Nic: And politically motivated decisions, personal bias and legally unsound decisions do not cause uncertainty or undermine the legal system?

      It can, but in this case, the 9th Circuit was bound by Supreme Court precedent.

      Nic: If a higher court decision is motivated by any of these factors it then becomes the duty of lower courts to challenge the precedent.

      That is false. A binding precedent is binding. What a lower court can do is try to find a way around the rule, but they can't simply refuse to enforce it. If they refuse to enforce the rule, they would be violating their oath and should resign rather than do what is contrary to their conscience.

      Nic: Decisions based on such reasoning have become rampant n the Canadian Supreme Court.

      Again, we were discussing the U.S. 9th Circuit Court. (By the way, it's the same in Canada, excepting Quebec. Under a common law system, lower courts are bound to follow the precedent of higher courts.)

      Delete
    33. Zachriel,

      "It's not semantics."

      Zachriel: "Precedents can be challenged by petitioners, not the lower courts."

      That statement is definitely semantics as petitioners must use the court system to implement an appeal and challenge the higher court's decision.

      Nic: "If a higher court decision is motivated by any of these factors it then becomes the duty of lower courts to challenge the precedent."

      Zachriel: "That is false. A binding precedent is binding. What a lower court can do is try to find a way around the rule, but they can't simply refuse to enforce it."

      Do you never weary of distorting the truth? I never said they simply refuse to enforce it, I clearly said it would be their duty to challenge the ruling. Those two factors are not the same. Please, Zachriel, debate with some integrity and quit twisting my words.

      "Again, we were discussing the U.S. 9th Circuit Court."

      No, we are discussing the entire Common Law system of judicial practice. The situation with the 9th Circuit Court in the US is not unique in any way. Absurd abuses of the system are carried out by activist judges all through the US and Canada.


      Delete
    34. Nic: That statement is definitely semantics as petitioners must use the court system to implement an appeal and challenge the higher court's decision.

      It's not semantics. The lower court can't petition to overturn a precedent, only a petitioner can do so, and only after getting an adverse ruling from the lower court.

      Nic: I never said they simply refuse to enforce it, I clearly said it would be their duty to challenge the ruling.

      That's false. Their duty is to enforce the rule of law, which means enforcing judicial precedent where it applies. We've provided an authoritative citation.

      Delete
    35. Zachriel,

      "It's not semantics. The lower court can't petition to overturn a precedent, only a petitioner can do so, and only after getting an adverse ruling from the lower court."

      Good grief man, you're trying to discuss a subject of which you know nothing. Any petitioner must use the courts to appeal a judgement. He cannot simply show up to the higher court on a Tuesday morning and expect a hearing.

      "That's false. Their duty is to enforce the rule of law, which means enforcing judicial precedent where it applies. We've provided an authoritative citation."

      Their duty is to the law, not to the opinions of activist judges.

      I do not know the details of the situation in the US, but in Canada we have Supreme Court judges who, in defiance of all rules of judicial conduct and impartiality, make public speeches regards situations which may be coming before them for a ruling. How can one expect a fair and impartial ruling from a group of judges who have publicly stated their position on a question on which they are expected to provide an impartial judgement.

      Judges in Canada and the US have become political and social activists, and I for one am in favour of lower courts taking action to stop them. If that means defying precedence, so be it. The turmoil which would ensue would be worth the trouble.

      I know at this time I, and those who agree with my sentiments, are spitting into the wind, but this type of activity; ie. challenging precedents; is necessary if we are to maintain any vestige of freedom in our respective countries. Whether you are aware of it or not your freedom and the freedom of everyone in North America is being systematically eroded by activist judges who are putting their social and political agendas ahead of the law.

      Delete
    36. Nic: Any petitioner must use the courts to appeal a judgement.

      That's right. And the court, such as the 9th Circuit, must rule based on precedent. The lower court does not challenge the precedent, but is bound by it.

      Nic: Their duty is to the law, not to the opinions of activist judges.

      Under common law, lower courts are bound by the rules set by higher courts.

      Nic: How can one expect a fair and impartial ruling from a group of judges who have publicly stated their position on a question on which they are expected to provide an impartial judgement.

      Irrelevant. If a higher court makes a ruling, the lower courts are bound to enforce it.

      Nic: If that means defying precedence, so be it.

      Lower courts do not have that power. If a judge issues an order that violates an applicable precedent, the higher court will slap them down.

      Nic: this type of activity; ie. challenging precedents; is necessary if we are to maintain any vestige of freedom in our respective countries.

      You challenge precedent through the process of appeal. If you don't agree with your Supreme Court, then statutory change may work. Or change the constitution.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR9JMwzxybE

      Delete
    37. Zachriel,

      "The lower court does not challenge the precedent, ...."

      It can if it so wishes. The superior court must then weigh the value of the challenge. It can then decide to hear the challenge or reject it.

      Nic: "How can one expect a fair and impartial ruling from a group of judges who have publicly stated their position on a question on which they are expected to provide an impartial judgement."

      Zachriel: "Irrelevant. If a higher court makes a ruling, the lower courts are bound to enforce it."

      So the impartiality of judges is irrelevant? You are to be pitied. It's people who think like that who will usher in totalitarian regimes. And don't be so naive as to think it can't happen here. It is already on its way to happening.

      "You challenge precedent through the process of appeal."

      Well duh!. That is what have been saying all along, genius. You just keep repeating the necessity of being bound by precedent. The appeal process is the very vehicle by which precedents may be challenged.

      Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about? It seems totally unlikely.

      Delete
    38. Nic: It can if it so wishes. The superior court must then weigh the value of the challenge.

      There is no course for a lower court to challenge a higher court precedent. Only a petitioner can challenge a precedent, and only then if they have a new situation or argument. The known situations and old arguments have already been litigated. The 9th Circuit had no choice in this case.

      Nic: So the impartiality of judges is irrelevant?

      It's irrelevant to the lower court. They are bound by the decisions of the upper court however those decisions were reached.

      Nic: Well duh!. That is what have been saying all along, genius.

      No. You said the lower court could choose not to enforce the relevant precedent. That is simply not correct. If the 9th Circuit is hearing a case concerning a statute that outlaws abortion outright, then they have no choice but to overturn the law — even if they find abortion repugnant and support the law.

      Nic: The appeal process is the very vehicle by which precedents may be challenged.

      Appeals aren't made by the lower court, but by petitioners. The lower court is bound, but then you can appeal their ruling. If you have no other argument than that you don't like the higher court precedent, they won't hear your case. That's why abortion opponents are crafting laws trying to get around the precedent set by Roe.

      The Law Library of Congress: The decisions of the highest court in a jurisdiction create mandatory precedent that must be followed by lower courts in that jurisdiction. For example, the US Supreme Court creates binding precedent that all other federal courts must follow. Similarly, intermediate appellate courts (such as the federal circuit courts of appeal) create mandatory precedent for the courts below them.
      http://www.loc.gov/law/help/judicial-decisions.php

      Delete
    39. Zachriel,

      "Only a petitioner can challenge a precedent....,"

      Which is what I've said repeatedly, but as usual you never pay attention to what someone writes as it might upset your rhetoric.

      Nic: "So the impartiality of judges is irrelevant?"

      Zachrial: "It's irrelevant to the lower court."

      A biased judge or judges is NEVER irrelevant.

      "Appeals aren't made by the lower court, but by petitioners."

      You're incredibly dense aren't you? It's sad really. Petitioners must use the courts to facilitate their appeal. A petitioner does not have access to a superior court except via a lower court.

      Why do you insist on debating a subject you do not understand in the slightest?

      Delete
    40. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    41. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    42. Zachriel: Only a petitioner can challenge a precedent...

      Nic: Which is what I've said repeatedly, but as usual you never pay attention to what someone writes as it might upset your rhetoric.

      Z: The lower court does not challenge the precedent, ...

      N: It can if it so wishes.

      Delete
    43. Zachriel,

      "The lower court does not challenge the precedent, ..."

      Zachriel, please pay attention. If a petitioner comes to a lower court with a case which challenges a supreme court ruling and the lower court agrees the argument presented by the petitioner is valid under the law it can rule in his favour resulting in a reference to the higher courts.

      Tell me, how is that not a challenge of a precedent?

      Delete
    44. Nic: If a petitioner comes to a lower court with a case which challenges a supreme court ruling and the lower court agrees the argument presented by the petitioner is valid under the law it can rule in his favour resulting in a reference to the higher courts.

      The lower court is bound to rule against the petitioner if the issue has already been adjudicated by the higher court, that is, if there is a relevant precedent. For instance, if a statute is passed prohibiting all abortions, then the judge is bound to overturn the law, even if the judge finds abortion morally repugnant. The argument has already been adjudicated and the issue has been decided. You can't keep making the same arguments in court over and over again.

      If the law simply makes abortion more difficult, for instance, to protect the health of the woman {nudge, nudge, wink, wink}, then the judge may allow the law as long as it doesn't create an undue burden.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc

      That's why anti-abortion laws are crafted the way they are. They have to work around the existing precedent.

      Delete
    45. Zachriel,

      "The lower court is bound to rule against the petitioner,..
      You can't keep making the same arguments in court over and over again."

      Not if they agree with his case. If they feel the petitioner has presented new and unique arguments which were not presented in earlier cases and believe these new arguments could result in a reversal of the earlier decision of the high court, they can rule in favour of the petitioner and require the superior court to consider these new arguments.

      The superior court, after reviewing the arguments, may rule against the petitioner without convening a formal hearing, but that does not alter the fact the lower court has challenged the superior court's earlier ruling.

      Delete
    46. Nic: Not if they agree with his case.

      It doesn't matter if they agree with his case if the issue has already been adjudicated.

      Nic: If they feel the petitioner has presented new and unique arguments which were not presented in earlier cases and believe these new arguments could result in a reversal of the earlier decision of the high court, they can rule in favour of the petitioner and require the superior court to consider these new arguments.

      If there is a new issue, then it may result in a different ruling, as long as it is consistent with previous precedents on the issue.

      Nic: the lower court has challenged the superior court's earlier ruling.

      The lower court hasn't challenged the higher court's ruling. In your example, there is a new issue to be decided. Even then, it has to be consistent with any relevant precedent.

      You have adjusted your position somewhat over the course of this conversation. Not sure why you are so resistant to changing your mind. It's acts only to stifle your ability to learn.

      Delete
    47. Zachriel,

      "The lower court hasn't challenged the higher court's ruling."

      It's obvious you can never admit to yourself you're wrong. You would argue black was white. I've demonstrated you're wrong on several occasions in this exchange, but in Zachriel's little world he is always right. So go right ahead, tell yourself you were right and I was wrong. Facts are totally irrelevant to you so I will waste no more time trying to present them to you.

      "You have adjusted your position somewhat over the course of this conversation. Not sure why you are so resistant to changing your mind. It's acts only to stifle your ability to learn."

      I stifle my ability to learn? Now that is just a hoot! You're the one who has been shown to be wrong at every turn in this conversation and I'm the one who is failing to learn? I'll retire to bedlam.

      Delete
    48. Here's a sample where you directly contradicted yourself.

      Zachriel: Only a petitioner can challenge a precedent...

      Nic: Which is what I've said repeatedly, but as usual you never pay attention to what someone writes as it might upset your rhetoric.

      Z: The lower court does not challenge the precedent, ...

      N: It can if it so wishes.

      A good thing to do in a discussion is try to find points of commonality. We both agree that when a new issue is raised, then a court may find an exception or mitigation to a precedent. Where we don't agree is that a lower court can ignore a precedent because it disagrees with the upper court.

      Delete
    49. Zachriel,

      First, only in your fertile imagination did I contradict myself. I have been saying all along the lower courts challenge a precedent via a petitioner.

      Second, I don't recall ever saying the lower courts could outright ignore a precedent handed down by a superior court. I have been very clear from the beginning lower courts can challenge such rulings but must do so via a petitioner while presenting new arguments which may result in a reversal.

      Another good thing to do in a discussion, Zachriel, is to present your opponents position honestly. Whether or not it is intentional on your part, I don't know, but that is something you rarely do. You very often misrepresent what I say. A perfect example being this last post where you claim I said a lower court could simply ignore a ruling from the higher court.

      Delete
    50. Nic: I don't recall ever saying the lower courts could outright ignore a precedent handed down by a superior court.

      N: They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it.

      That statement was incorrect, and we provided an authoritative citation showing otherwise.

      The Law Library of Congress: The decisions of the highest court in a jurisdiction create mandatory precedent that must be followed by lower courts in that jurisdiction. For example, the US Supreme Court creates binding precedent that all other federal courts must follow. Similarly, intermediate appellate courts (such as the federal circuit courts of appeal) create mandatory precedent for the courts below them.
      http://www.loc.gov/law/help/judicial-decisions.php

      Then you made several other statements along the lines of "Judges in Canada and the US have become political and social activists, and I for one am in favour of lower courts taking action to stop them. If that means defying precedence, so be it."

      Delete
    51. Zachriel,

      "They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it."

      Thank you, Zachriel, for providing a perfect example as to how you misrepresent what I say. Only in your fertile little mind is this the same as me saying the lower court can simply ignore the superior courts ruling.

      As each case is unique any precedent can only serve as a guide for rulings by the lower courts. It is extremely rare that a precedent would apply completely in every case.

      "Then you made several other statements along the lines of "Judges in Canada and the US have become political and social activists, and I for one am in favour of lower courts taking action to stop them. If that means defying precedence, so be it."

      Yes, I said that and I stand by it. But how does that imply I think they can simply ignore superior court rulings? I am clearly saying such defiance would be against the tradition of binding precedent but may be necessary to reign in activist judges.

      This is just another example of your complete failure to understand the argument I'm presenting and your tendency to misrepresent what is actually being said.

      Are you doing this intentionally or is your reading comprehension really that poor?

      Delete
    52. Nic: Only in your fertile little mind is this the same as me saying the lower court can simply ignore the superior courts ruling.

      You made several such statements, including "They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it."

      Nic: Only in your fertile little mind is this the same as me saying the lower court can simply ignore the superior courts ruling.

      Defying precedent would be for a judge to violate their oath, and of no legal effect. The higher court would just order the lower court to enforce the law, or move the case to another judge who will.

      Nic: Are you doing this intentionally or is your reading comprehension really that poor?

      N: "They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it."

      Delete
    53. Zachriel,

      "You made several such statements, including "They are not to be bound by precedent, only guided by it."

      And because you could not grasp the intent of the comment I clarified my use of the term 'guided' and what was meant by it.

      "Defying precedent would be for a judge to violate their oath, and of no legal effect. The higher court would just order the lower court to enforce the law, or move the case to another judge who will."

      You're correct. However, such disobedience may be necessary to reign in activist judges who are increasingly dictating the law rather than applying it. That is the intent behind my statement. I made that very clear.

      Delete
    54. Nic: And because you could not grasp the intent of the comment I clarified my use of the term 'guided' and what was meant by it.

      A lower court is bound. If you had clarified, that would have been fine, but what you did was continue to defend your erroneous statement. No matter.

      Nic: That is the intent behind my statement. I made that very clear.

      So lower courts are bound by oath and law to enforce upper court decisions. You advocate that they violate their oaths rather than resign, even though such a violation would be of no legal consequence.

      Delete
    55. Zachriel

      "If you had clarified,..."

      All I can do is apologize if I was not clear enough leading you to misunderstand what I meant. So, sorry.

      "You advocate that they violate their oaths rather than resign,..."

      That would be up to the individual judge of course, but some form of civil disobedience is often necessary to change situations such as the one we see with social activist judges. They have stepped beyond their boundaries and it will probably be necessary for others to do the same to rectify the situation.

      Delete
    56. Nic: All I can do is apologize if I was not clear enough leading you to misunderstand what I meant.

      The clarification was more than enough.

      We'll leave your last comment be.

      Delete
    57. Zachriel,

      "We'll leave your last comment be."

      Sounds good. I'm sure we will butt heads again soon, my friend.

      Delete
    58. Zachriel,

      "We'll leave your last comment be."

      Sounds good. I'm sure we will butt heads again soon, my friend.

      Delete
  3. I don't know, Cornelius, I'd say that judges are definitely part of the problem. I certainly agree that the "non-viable" need protection, though, and it is an abomination that millions are sacrificed on the alter of "choice".

    ReplyDelete
  4. “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, Dr. Hunter, for posting this.
    I think, however, that you are far to hard on the Darwinist community. Should biologists know better? Of course. Should our medical doctors know better? Of course.

    But we, the Christian community have not been nearly as clear on this issue as we should be. What do we call the wanton killing of a human being? Normally, we call it murder. What do we call the wanton mass slaughter of millions of them? Genocide.

    We, the Christian community, the ones who carry the responsibility to be light to the darkness, have not been clear about the massacre that abortion is. We will be held accountable for our laxness on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you are also against war and death penalty.

      Delete
    2. Calamity, what a cop out!
      Your theory is that if I am not perfect by your interpretation, you have the right to be more villainous than Hitler?

      Lets start at the start. War as conquest? I am absolutely opposed! It is no better than abortion (except that it kills a lot fewer people.) War as self-defense? Well, it turns out that the one case where I understand the need for abortion is where the life of the mother is in peril if she continues the pregnancy. The latter is rare, and in my opinion, everything possible should be done to save the baby while ending the pregnancy. This is a good potential use for surrogates.

      As far as the death penalty goes, well, when one person starts murdering another, this activity must be put to an end. I am not convinced that the death penalty is the best solution, and I see it as a moral tragedy and outrage when the falsely convicted are executed. However, to say that it pales in comparison to women murdering their own offspring because their offspring are inconvenient is gross understatement.

      No killin babies!

      Delete
    3. So yeah you are in favor of death penalty. So killing other humans in an institutionalized way doesn't bother you.

      I don't see the problem of abortion when it's legal before like 14 weeks.

      Delete
    4. Why is it not OK after 14 weeks, but OK before then?

      Delete
    5. I guess it's a reasonable period of time to make your decision.

      Every sperm is sacred to you Mr Hunter ?

      Delete
    6. So someone's right to life is based on a subjective guess?

      Delete
    7. You do know that legal time limits for abortion are not based on subjective guess but are medically informed ?


      To conlude my posts on this subject, abortion has nothing to do with evolutionnary theory.

      Delete
    8. "Every sperm is sacred to you Mr Hunter ?"
      Cop out! A sperm isn't a complete homosapien. Every fertilized egg? Absolutely!

      Delete
  6. May God help us when parents think killing their children is just another 'reproductive choice'

    ReplyDelete
  7. Calamity, "I don't see the problem of abortion when it's legal before like 14 weeks."

    Thats nice, but what about 40 weeks? What about the cases where the doctor has a choice, remove a living, viable baby via cesarean section, or perform the "abortion"? This is legal in a number of states such as: AK, CO, VT, OR and NH. Is that ok with you? Is it a little bit not ok? Is it genocide!?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I could care less about American courts. But I was interested in one of your stements:

    "With evolution the engine of progress is death, and evolutionary thinking has spawned such horrors as eugenics and abortion."

    First, evolution does not require death as you infer by this misleading statement. All it requires is disproportionate reproduction.

    And, yes, the eugenics movement misused evolution theory. But the misuse of the science doesn't make the science wrong. A nuclear bomb is a misuse of atomic sciences. Why aren't you using this fact as an argument against the reality of nuclear physics?

    And where do you get this nebulous link between evolution and abortion? If anything, you should be using evolutionary theory as an argument against abortion. If evolution is a "striving" to produce the most offspring, his does abortion fit into this?

    ReplyDelete