Non-lawyers have a disadvantage when discussing Supreme Court issues. The disadvantage is mainly that they just don’t comprehend how judges make decisions, and know nothing about “legal argument” or “legal reasoning”.

It’s kind of sadly laughable that the Republican propagandists on the radio push so hard for “strict constructionist” judges, as if they knew what such a term meant, and they push for “anti-abortion” judges, as if judges should invoke their personal political beliefs from the bench. Flip it around and point the same type of comment at the ignorant liberals.

Ignoramous propagandists rail against “legislating from the bench” ignorant of the fact that much of judicial decision making (liberal or conservative) is some form of “legislation” from the bench (as in judges deciding whether a vague law is broad enough to cover a thing or behavior or transaction - the judges fill in the gaps in the written laws).

Ok, lesson for today directed at the liberals: The so-called right-wing judges Scalia and Thomas voted today, 10-17-05, to order the State of Missouri to transport a woman prisoner to get an abortion. Missouri had refused to take the woman prisoner to get an abortion, due to a change in the law by Rep. Governor Blunt. The ACLU [yes, that “communist” organization thats “hates America”] stepped in and got a Federal Judge to declare that Missouri must transport the woman - her Constitutional Rights were being violated!

Missouri then appealed on an emergency basis to the USSC. The USSC Justice who oversees Missouri is Clarence Thomas. Thomas at first issued a “Stay” of the lower court ruling. Per procedure, Thomas immediately referred the case to the full USSC for emergency consideration.

Today, 10-17-05, the full USSC unanimously voted to “vacate the stay”, meaning that the lower court order has full effect, and Missouri must transport the woman prisoner to get an abortion.

Thomas and Scalia and the new Chief John Roberts were part of the case, voting to vacate the stay. But vacating the stay does Not mean that the Justices “support” abortion. It means that the legal standards were not met to enable the Court to impose a permanent stay. This is how judicial decision making works, and this is why all politicians will be dissapointed if they think that principled judges are going to ignore legal standards and make pure political rulings. [Ok, there might be a few exceptions!]

See the Findlaw news item about the Missouri abortion case here

Verify the USSC order here - PDF link. The text of the simple order is as follows:

(ORDER LIST: 546 U.S.)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
05A333 CRAWFORD, LARRY, ET AL. V. ROE, JANE

The application for stay presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied. The temporary stay entered October 14, 2005, is vacated.