Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine: et lux perpetua luceat eis. Te decet hymnus, Deus, in Sion
Chief Justice Rhenquist has died at home. The Yahoo News obituaryincludes:
Rehnquist, who championed states' rights and helped speed up executions, is the only member still on the court who voted on Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion. He opposed that decision, writing: "Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the `right' to an abortion is not so universally accepted as (Roe) would have us believe."
He believed there was a place for some religion in government. He wrote the 5-4 decision in 2002 that said parents may use public tax money to send their children to religious schools. Two years later, he was distressed when the court passed up a chance to declare that the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is constitutional.
"The phrase 'under God' in the pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the nation's leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances," he wrote.
Then there was this:
Rehnquist caused great amusement when he departed from tradition by adding four shiny gold stripes to each sleeve of his black robe in 1995. The flourish was inspired by a costume in a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta.
This from a man opposed to his Court's decision to strike down laws criminalizing gay sex!
Read the whole obituary.
The fight over his replacement is bound to be nasty
In other legal obituaries, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, former Master of the Rolls, is also having a beer with Allah, as you read this! The London Daily Telegraph eulogized him thus:
The popular myth grew that Donaldson was biased in favour of the establishment. Yet many Conservative lawyers found him too brash, and his approach to civil liberties led one radical lawyer to observe in 1982 that "he has a passion for justice". His brisk and confident courtroom manner annoyed some barristers who thought him too quick on the uptake, but his demeanour stemmed from a deeply-felt commitment to sweep away delays in the justice system. He would deal directly with the press, which he skilfully used in his campaign for more judges.
His attitude towards politics was, he said, "much the same as a monk towards sex; nostalgic memories of youthful indiscretion, a frank acknowledgement of its attractions, an unshakeable conviction that I could do better than those currently engaged in it, but an acceptance that it will never be for me until I go to a far better world".
I couldn't resist that quote.
Nor this
In 1982 several of the judges whom Lord Hailsham sounded out were strongly opposed to Donaldson's appointment as Master of the Rolls, particularly in the Chancery Division, where they wanted an intellectual heavyweight. Mrs Thatcher was reputed to have said: "Fortunately, Lord Chancellor, your judges do not appoint the Master of the Rolls. I do."
Torygraph obituaries are always worth reading, so I suppose you should read this one, too!
posted by David | 3:34 PM
4 Comments:
I have no clue what the abortion laws are in Australia. What interests me about the debate in America (regardless of my position) is that so many people have opinions on it and have never so much as read an exerpt.
I have read it. More than once. According to the actual decision, very little abortion is actually legal right now. First trimester only. As soon as the child is capable of surviving outside the womb it becomes a person in its own right and not subject to the whims of the mother in termination of life.
Of course, we have been brainwashed to think that Roe v Wade gives blanket permission to get an abortion any time one pleases...
Airforcewife, it varies from state to state. In my State, it goes like this (from the Criminal Lsw Consolidation Act, 1935):
81. Attempts to procure abortion
(1) Any woman who, being with child, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, unlawfully administers to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to be imprisoned for life.
(2) Any person who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she is or is not with child, unlawfully administers to her, or causes to be taken by her, any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to be imprisoned for life.
82. Any person who unlawfully supplies or procures any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that it is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she is or is not with child, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years.
BUT SECTION 83 Reads:
1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 81 or 82, but subject to this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under either of those sections—
(a) if the pregnancy of a woman is terminated by a legally qualified medical practitioner in a case where he and one other legally qualified medical practitioner are of the opinion, formed in good faith after both have personally examined the woman—
(i) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve greater risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or greater risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(ii)that there is a substantial risk that, if the pregnancy were not terminated and the child were born to the pregnant woman, the child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped,
and where the treatment for the termination of the pregnancy is carried out in a hospital, or a hospital of a class, declared by regulation to be a prescribed hospital, or a hospital of a prescribed class, for the purposes of this section; or
(b)if the pregnancy of a woman is terminated by a legally qualified medical practitioner in a case where he is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination is immediately necessary to save the life, or to prevent grave injury to the physical or mental health, of the pregnant woman.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) does not refer or apply to any woman who has not resided in South Australia for a period of at least two months before the termination of her pregnancy.
(3) In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i), account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment.
[procedural]
(5) Subject to subsection (6), no person is under a duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this section to which he has a conscientious objection, but in any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection rests on the person claiming to rely on it.
(6) Nothing in subsection (5) affects any duty to participate in treatment which is necessary to save the life, or to prevent grave injury to the physical or mental health, of a pregnant woman.
(7) The provisions of subsection (1) do not apply to, or in relation to, a person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes such a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother where it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be prima facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.
(9)For the purposes of sections 81 and 82, anything done with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman is unlawfully done unless authorised by this section.
(10) In this section and in sections 81 and 82— "woman" means any female person of any age.
In practice, that's pretty much "abortion on demand" - although after 28 weeks, the abortionists and mother face a world of trouble proving that an abortion is legal - unless there's proof of grave illness on the part of the mother.
Now, we enacted section 83 in the 70's, and, one of the reasons that it is a less emotive issue here (outside the Catholic Church) is because this was Parliamentary, rather than judicial legislation.
In the State of Queensland, conservative Premier Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen raided some abortion clinics in the 80's [the only excuse for abortion there was severe danger to the mother's well being] only to have Judges throw out the charges on the basis that "the mother might get depressed if she had to bear the child". I'm no fan of the guy that the ABC here called the "Hillbilly Dictator", and "Jack Boots Bjelke" but these things are best left to the legislature.
And FWIW my position on Abortion probably lines up with Joe the Rat's!
David, that's very long (and interesting). And it cuts out some of the stuff that I point out in the US - which is that even high doses of vitamin C in the first few weeks can induce a miscarriage. That's not even going into ginger, which is a very strong abortifacent.
It also seems more than a little contradictory, so how is it known what is legal and what isn't? and what if a woman doesn't KNOW about Vit C? Does she have to prove she didn't know, or is the burden of proof on the state?
Common Law. The Crown must prove every element of the offence, inluding, in such cases, mens rea. Intent can count for a hell of a lot!
Post a Comment
<< Home