Another Federal Appeals Court Violates the Constitution of the United States and Reaches an Unconstitutional Decision
—
www.amazon.com has the exclusive right to sale my e-books in its Kindle Store.
1) The direct link to the e-book Constitution Workbook for Gunslingers.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LJEHZLS
2) The direct link to the e-book Constitution Answerbook for Gunslingers.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LK741AM
3) The direct link to the e-book The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KCWVHIK
4) The direct link to the e-book Bible Questionbook on Homosexuality for GODseekers
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LLLVPII
5) The direct link to the e-book Bible Answerbook on Homosexuality for GODseekers
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LMOIQF4
6) The direct link to the e-book The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ: The Bold Church and the Holy Spirit Questionbook (This is the first book in a series on The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LNKBORO
7) The direct link to the e-book The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ: The Bold Church and the Holy Spirit Answerbook (This is the second book in a series on The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LP34AD4
8) The direct link to the e-book The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ: The Church Individually and Collectively Questionbook (This is the third book in a series on The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LQ1HH4O
9) The direct link to the e-book The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ: The Church Individually and Collectively Answerbook (This is the forth book in a series on The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LR1HE2S
—
Primaries in August:
16) Kansas Primary: August 5, 2014 Milton Wolf for U.S. Senate
Website: http://www.miltonwolf.com/
Donate: https://secure.piryx.com/donate/swpfipwh/Milton-Wolf-for-U-S-Senate
Campaign ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdQHZIFJLU0
22) Michigan State Primary: August 5, 2014
Conservative Candidate Tom McMillin of Congressional District 8
Conservative Candidate John Moolenaar of Congressional District 4
25) Missouri Primary: August 5, 2014
47) Washington Primary: August 5, 2014
42) Tennessee Primary: August 7, 2014 (Thursday) Joe Carr for U.S. Senate
11) Hawaii Primary: August 9, 2014 (Saturday)
07) Connecticut Primary: August 12, 2014
23) Minnesota Primary: August 12, 2014
49) Wisconsin Primary: August 12, 2014
50) Wyoming Primary: August 12, 2014
02) Alaska Primary: August 19, 2014 Joe Miller for U.S. Senate
Website: http://joeforliberty.com/
Donate: https://www.widgetmakr.com/render/85eaa4f3-66f6-4c58-9361-b7364996fa16
Or by mail to:
Citizens for Joe Miller
250 Cushman Street, Suite 2A
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701”
03) Arizona Primary: August 26, 2014 Adam Kwasman Congressional District 1
09) Florida State Primary: August 26, 2014
45) Vermont Primary: August 26, 2014
—
From: http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2014/07/how-and-where-an-appeals-panel-decision-to-strike-down-law-that-would-have-closed-mississippis-last-abortion-clinic-went-wrong/#.U9qaTqTQPbg
“Admitting privileges
How and where an Appeals Panel decision to strike down law that would have closed Mississippi’s last abortion clinic went wrong
By Dave Andrusko
July 30, 2014
I almost didn’t run yesterday’s story about a split three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down a Mississippi law that requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. There was time only to skim the decision and to write in generalities.
Later last night when I sat down to carefully read both the majority opinion of Judges E. Grady Jolly and Stephan A. Higginson and the dissent of Judge Emilio M. Garza, I realized that Garza had simply eviscerated the arguments offered by Jolly and Higginson. The decision—including the dissent— is only 37-pages long, so if you have time you really should read it.
The easiest way to understand the decision is by looking at Garza as he artfully rebuts the conclusions drawn by his two colleagues. There are several qualities which make the challenge brought by the Jackson Women’s Health Organization special for the two judges, but the principal one is that it is the state of Mississippi’s lone abortion clinic.
Let me offer only a few of Garza’s keen critiques.
· Jolly and Higginson concede that the state met the test of having a ‘rational basis’ for the law. Garza described it this way: ‘In sum, the purpose of H.B. 1390 is to protect women seeking abortion services from the known risks of complications.’
· Judges Jolly and Higginson conclude that (as Garza’s describes it in his opening paragraph) ‘the mere act of crossing a state border imposes an ‘undue burden’ on woman’s right to choose to obtain abortion services.’ For starters (as Garza explains about half-way through his dissent), ‘In 2011, prior to the Act’s passage, nearly sixty percent of Mississippi women who obtained abortions already traveled to other states for these services.’ What’s the ‘undue burden’ on these women if the Jackson Women’s Health Organization closes because it cannot find a hospital willing to give its fly-in abortionists admitting privileges?
· Garza argues that because it is the ‘independent decisions of local hospitals—non-state actors’ to reject the abortionists’ applications, the closure would not ‘result directly from H.B. 1390.’ But even assuming it was because of H.B. 1390, Garza said he would disagree with the decision which held there was an undue burden ‘because Mississippi women would need to travel to a neighboring state to obtain abortion services.’ The majority relied on a misreading of the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, he writes. Jolly and Higginson concluded that because the High Court in Casey failed ‘to ‘mention or consider the potential availability of abortions…. in surrounding states’ [it] implies that we must confine our undue burden to Mississippi.’ Garza characterized that inference as ‘legally nonsensical.’ The case at hand presented ‘a novel factually situation—the closure of a state’s sole abortion provider as a result of a law regulating physician qualifications. The absence of binding authority addressing similar facts merely frees us to derive the rule of law that resolves this dispute.’
· Writing on behalf of himself and Judge Higginson, Judge Jolly shifted into rhetorical overdrive with this passage, one that is crucial to their decision: ‘We hold that Mississippi may not shift its obligation to respect the established constitutional rights of its citizens to another state. Such a proposal would not only place an undue burden on the exercise of the constitutional right, but would also disregard a state’s obligation under the principle of federalism—applicable to all fifty states—to accept the burden of the non-delegable duty of protecting the established federal constitutional rights of its own citizens.
To reach this strained conclusion, Garza notes that the majority relied heavily on a case they admit had ‘never been cited in the abortion context.’ It was the refusal of the University of Missouri law school in the 1930s to admit an African-American; the law school then offered him a stipend to attend a law school in a neighboring state. [In fact Jolly wrote, ‘Although cognizant of these serious distinctions and although decided in another context…’ Talk about a stretch!]
Garza explains at length the difference between equal protection obligations and the Due Process Clause (which the abortion clinic was suing under); explains that Mississippi is not providing a service (abortion)—and indeed, ‘no state is obligated to provide or guarantee the provision of abortion services within its borders’; and that for those women in the Jackson area most affected by the clinic’s closing, ‘a proper undue analysis must assess the cost of obtaining abortion services at the closest facility in a neighboring state.’ That analysis had not been done by the district court. Why? Likely because both the district court and the majority concluded that ‘the close or a state’s only abortion provider would be a per se undue burden.’
Judge Garza offers many more trenchant criticisms, including of the majority’s pretense that there could be a law that has the effect of closing all abortion clinics that they would not strike down. In you can squeeze in the time, please at least read his 19-page dissent.
It offers a roadmap for clear thinking about supposed ‘undue burdens’ that are nothing of the sort.”
I did not comment on this for one reason. The decision was a farce and invalid before it ever got to this court! I posted this to give the names of two more federal judges who should be impeached for violating their oath of office.
Constitutional law—the Constitution of the United States—is quite clear. No federal court outside of the Supreme Court has legal jurisdiction over any federal trial in which the State is a party! NONE! NOT in the beginning! NOT now! NOT until the Constitution is amended by a legally established method of amending the Constitution!
Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2 of the United States Constitution:
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
What part of “all” do the federal courts not understand? Or, perhaps they do not understand the meaning of original jurisdiction?
Two judges who have violated their oath of office and need to be impeached!
1) Judge E. Grady Jolly
2) Judge Stephan A. Higginson
Impeachment IS the answer!
The horrors of abortion/MURDER are multitudinous! And the Left and the courts do not care!
The Democrat Party: The Party of death and MURDER! The Party of SIN and depravity!
Impeach Barack Hussein Obama!
Impeach Barack Hussein Obama!
Impeach Barack Hussein Obama!
—
Senator Cruz on “repealing” the Hobby Lobby decision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyoW75DYiDY
—
The Environment Protection Agency as tyrant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO8dSjJxLE4#t=84
—
America:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10203900770857211
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 10:57 PM
