Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Jones v. Constitution

The G.O.P. frivolous lawsuit follies continue with this tale of a right-wing law firm attempting to "reopen" Roe v. Wade, a case concluded over 30 years ago.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Norma McCorvey's attempt Tuesday to reopen the 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion.

But one judge on the three-judge panel, Houston's Edith H. Jones, saw fit to use the ruling to blast the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark abortion ruling -- a development that stirred activists on both sides of the issue.


In June 2003, backed by Parker and his San Antonio-based Justice Foundation, McCorvey filed a motion asking the federal courts to overturn the Roe decision because it is no longer "fair or just." She submitted what she claimed was new evidence showing that abortion destroys a woman's physical and mental health.

The case was unusual in that nobody rose to take the other side. Henry Wade, the legendary Dallas County district attorney who originally opposed McCorvey, is dead. Dallas' current district attorney, Bill Hill, said he had no place in the matter because Texas' criminal law on abortion no longer exists.

In its seven-page ruling, the 5th Circuit ruled that Texas' laws criminalizing abortion, which McCorvey wants reinstated, have been "repealed by implication" and replaced with civil laws and regulations. As a result, the court found, McCorvey did not present a "live case or controversy" and her motion was moot.

The most troubling part is that Reagan-appointed judicial activist Edith Jones cited McCorvey's trumped up (and unopposed) evidence to urge reversal of Roe v. Wade.

[Jones] also authored a strongly worded four-page concurring opinion that called the Roe decision an "exercise of raw judicial power." McCorvey, she wrote, "presented evidence that goes to the heart of the balance Roe struck between the choice of a mother and the life of her unborn child."

Jones, appearing to agree with all of McCorvey's evidence, stated, "If courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman's 'choice' is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentience far more advanced, than the Roe Court knew."

Jones used a sham -- and frivolous -- proceeding to attack the results of the original, real and contested litigation.

We can look forward to her nomination to the Supreme Court if Bush wins the election.

No comments: