Ken's Comments

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on what one news outlet called a "potentially blockbuster abortion case."*1  The key issue in this case, according to SCOTUSBlog,*2 is "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional."   This grows out of a Louisiana case decided in 2020 where the US Supreme Court struck down a law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital.  In a 5-4 ruling, the Court said this is an unconstitutional restriction on pre-viability abortions.  Typically, objections from pro-choice advocates is that few abortion providers have admitting privileges and, in some places, they are a considerable distance apart. In the Mississippi case, the State has banned abortions after 15 weeks, the second week of the second trimester.  Mississippi points out that a woman can have an abortion prior to the 15 week mark without restriction, where in the Louisiana case if a woman co...

 It did not take long to see the importance of adding Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, sided with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish group, and granted a temporary injunction blocking the State of New York from restricting attendance at religious ceremonies as the State has been doing.  The Majority argued the religious groups were likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the New York limitations impinged on the First Amendment right to exercise religion.   Earlier this year, similar cases came before the Supreme Court where religious institutions asked that California and Nevada restrictions on church attendance be overturned.  In each case the Court decided, by a 5 to 4 vote, in favor of the State governments that the restrictions were not a violation of the First Amendment. There were differences between the State restrictions in t...

Innocent until proven guilty - President Trump called them beautiful words.  Democrats responded by saying that then Judge Kavanaugh was not in a court of law and that rule does not apply.  That's a true statement, the issue was not before a court of law but I'm not buying that argument. In this case the US Senate had a duty to decide a question - should Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the US Supreme Court be approved.  A key issue before them was whether he had committed sexual assault on women in his past.  Evidence was presented - both in the form of testimony by witnesses and a report from the FBI. The Senators then had to make a decision. So the question becomes what standard would you use to make the determination?  If it's not innocent until proven guilty then what?  Guilty until proven innocent? Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not; all of those are measures that are applied after you answer the firs...

Recently the Supreme Court voted to strike down a Texas law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at hospitals.  It's funny, I thought making abortion legal was about protecting the health of women - guess not. Remember when Joan Rivers died?  Right after that, Nancy Snyderman, at the time the Chief Medical Editor for NBC News, made the observation that it is important for people to see physicians with admitting privileges to hospitals when having outpatient surgery performed.  The context of the comment was that Ms. Rivers was undergoing what was thought to be a simple procedure in a doctor's office.  When things went wrong, the doctor - because he had admitting privileges - was able to immediately get Ms. Rivers admitted to a hospital.  Unfortunately, as events turned out, the hospital was not able to save Ms. Rivers. Here we have a Texas law that says abortion doctors must have admitting privileges to perform abortions and t...

Further on the debate over whether the Republicans should consider a Supreme Court nominee submitted by President Obama to replace Justice Scalia. Seems that in 2006, then Senator Obama called on his colleagues in the Democrat majority to not consider appointees offered by President Bush.  A full 2 years prior to the end of President Bush's term in office. In 1988 and 1992, then Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, killed many appointees offered by Presidents Reagan and Bush, respectively. http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2016/02/27/washposts-thiessen-biden-blocked-federal-court-nominations-en-masse My position remains the same as before.  To have my respect, if an elected official takes a position for or against considering judicial nominees they need to remain consistent regardless of the party to which the President belongs. Personally, I don't favor a total ban on consideration of a nominee just because it is the President's la...

Senator McConnell says a Supreme Court nominee by President Obama won't be considered in the Senate.  Republican Presidential Candidates sing out in agreement.  Democrats and liberals whine loudly about this.  In response to that whining, a friend of mine sent me this link: http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146 In July 2007 - more than 18 months before President George W. Bush was to leave office, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called on his colleagues in the newly elected Democrat Majority to refuse to approve any Supreme Court nominees offered by President Bush.  Note the timing - not an election year, 18 months before the President was to leave office. Note the hypocrisy. Now, let me put a different twist on this, since I claim to be a thoughtful, reasonable Conservative. 1. How many Republicans were in the Senate in 2007 when Sen. Schumer said this? 2. How many of those Senators disagreed with...