And AGAIN, it’s all about Kennedy

Here’s an article a couple of weeks ago in the Sun talking about what I was talking about the week before that:

That Anthony Kennedy is probably one of the most powerful men in America right now, as a “Moderate” on the US Supreme Court. In a three week period Kennedy ruled (the others’ positions were already clear) on Guantanimo Bay detainees access to U.S. Courts, CO2 emissions regulated by the EPA, and today…partial birth abortion.

From the article:

In his 19 years on the court, Justice Kennedy has been criticized for deciding cases without an overarching judicial philosophy. As a result, his vote appears to be up for grabs from one case to the next.

I’m not sure that’s a completely fair criticism, and not that it doesn’t have an element of truth in it, but that compared to Justice O’Connor, Kennedy is a downright idealogue. If you look at the two cases of Partial Birth Abortion, and CO2 emissions, Kennedy in both cases came on the side of affirming federal authority. Neither is a “state’s rights” victory per se, but it just happens that a pro-life stance will take precedent over a state’s rights stance everytime on the conservative side of the court.

As one can tell from the decisions (for emissions controls, against the Gitmo detainees–actually deciding not to take up the case (for now)–, and for a Partial Birth Abortion ban), Kennedy can swing either way and it’s all up to him.

On a political note, the National Review Online already has a compendium of reactions from some of the leading Presidential Candidates on the Partial Birth ban.

Update: I couldn’t resist linking to this post by Coyote Blog on the ideas of “choice,” breast implants, and partial-birth abortion.

The New York Sun

Advertisements

Choice…who’s choice?

This is an example of how weird the laws against abortion seems to a pro-lifer (like myself). The only difference between abortion and murdering your own unborn children is that in the case of an abortion a doctor does the killing. We can all continue to argue whether an unborn child is its own body or officially part of the mother’s body, but an appeals court in Texas decided that killing your unwanted children (without “medical supervision”) is indeed murder. In this particular case the mother had TRIED repeatedly to kill her children (twins) by literally punching herself in the stomach…until she finally talked her boyfriend into stepping on her.

Does anyone disagree with the outcome of this case? Is this a real murder conviction or are they just being convicted because they’re too stupid to get an abortion? I wonder, had the mother been successful of killing her kids without her boyfriend’s help, if she would have been convicted of murder. If not, would that mean this is discriminating against men?

Hat tip to Cajun Tiger.