|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Question Re: Partial-Birth Abortion | by webwalrus | 2003-11-06 06:37:25 |
|
Okay, here's a different thought. | by ragman | 2003-11-06 13:26:12 |
|
The injunction was granted on behalf of | by BloodyViking | 2003-11-06 13:52:21 |
| Saw this late... |
by ragman |
2003-11-07 07:03:27 |
...so I didn't get to respond yesterday.
I would expect that the doctors would follow the law as it has been passed by the government. Though you're right in saying they would represent a party that could be potentially "injured" by the law, I disagree with the precedent they're establishing by finding favorable federal judges to issue injunctions that circumvent laws they don't like.
The judicial branch of our government is not a law QA group, preemptively testing laws before they can be released. That function is given, by the Constitution, to the legislature. My point is that, when federal judges are using their injunction powers to flatly stop laws from going into effect, they're superceding their authority. Their authority to decide the constitutionality should of a given law should be tested in trial, not by the opionion of a politically-motivated judge.
As for the doctors' careers, well I don't find that part of the complaint very compelling. If my business was selling cigarette machines to high schools, I would not be terribly surprised if there were laws enacted that affected what would otherwise be a lucrative business.
Besides, the doctor's worries of losing business in a career that the federal legislature has decided (right or wrong) is illegal don't have any affect on the constitutionality of the law. I DON'T see them as an injured party (hence the earlier quotes around the word), because the effect of the law on their businesses is secondary to the people truly affected by the law...women on one side, and the unborn on the other.
To me, a constitutional challenge of the law should come from one of those parties, not from people who stand to lose/gain profit from these parties as a result of the law. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
