To return a bit to recent subjects. After watching Julia Sweeney's show on God, I was in the mood for her first monologue, "God Said 'Ha'." I watched this on television a few times and loved it -- she has such a fun way of talking, while being serious too. Toss in that fact she is just adorable, it's a nice mixture. Now, when I listened to her second monologue, talking about the adoption of her daughter, the "ordinary girl" image did change a bit. We hear of her surely pretty expensive world travels, how on one such trip she was sleeping with a guide, and so forth. So unlike Julia! Stick with the "nice Catholic girl" type stuff. Sure, I know, you were on SNL and all, but still!
So, I reserved it from the library along with the book based on the same material -- skimming through it, we see that there is a good amount of extra material she didn't use for the particular show that was filmed, was edited out, or simply did not fit into the stage performance. So, it's like buying one of those special editions of CDs, and getting a few new songs and a few words of personal commentary (think one of those "live performance" compilations). Or, one of those DVDs with bonus material (the actual DVD here does not). Anyway, enjoyed both, though again, the life performance sort of winds down in the last half hour.
Also, I listened to the abortion orals audio. This too in effect lulls by the last hour -- actually, it is a bit unclear why exactly they took the separate case. It really seems a bit redundant, and all sides (toss in the Court) seemed to be going through the motions by the time it was done -- there really was not much more to say. There probably is some technical reason that they took the case (from the Ninth Circuit, so one fears the liberal ruling below will be overturned, for old time's sake at the very least), and I recall it being suggested (though even then, the person wondered) when it was addressed in a legal blog.
But, both did suggest the justices did their homework, and you respect them for it. It also underlines why these sorts of things should be available per C-SPAN on a regular basis. If you don't want abortion to get so much focus, why single out it among a handful of cases to be so released? Fears of grandstanding if anything would be true here. Anyway, Kennedy's questions suggest he doesn't feel too comfortable with a law with absolutely no health exception. If so, that's surely five votes -- he's the swing. He surely was pretty analytical, not suggesting that he was the author of an emotional dissent the last time the Supremes struck down a state law of this nature.
BTW, I suggested tacking on a judicially mandated health exception was "minimalist." Maybe not -- well, not is a fashion, but it is a limited result. Since, the Congress purposively did not include one, yes, it would in effect be "judicial activism." The judges are going against the will of Congress, plus sets up a regime where lower courts repeatedly have to decide in various factual situations if a certain law is "undue." I'm not as dismissive of Casey as the author of that link -- its extended defense of the right at issue is worthwhile alone -- but there is a value to clear-cut rule. Unfortunately, or not, often that is not how it works. Courts tend to have middle of the roaders who temper the rule, put in exceptions, and make it vaguer. Anyway, I agree with the person that Stevens' words hold true:
Although much ink is spilled today describing the gruesome nature of late-term abortion procedures, that rhetoric does not provide me a reason to believe that the procedure Nebraska here claims it seeks to ban is more brutal, more gruesome, or less respectful of “potential life” than the equally gruesome procedure Nebraska claims it still allows. Justice Ginsburg and Judge Posner have, I believe, correctly diagnosed the underlying reason for the enactment of this legislation–a reason that also explains much of the Court’s rhetoric directed at an objective that extends well beyond the narrow issue that this case presents. The rhetoric is almost, but not quite, loud enough to obscure the quiet fact that during the past 27 years, the central holding of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), has been endorsed by all but 4 of the 17 Justices who have addressed the issue. That holding–that the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment includes a woman’s right to make this difficult and extremely personal decision–makes it impossible for me to understand how a State has any legitimate interest in requiring a doctor to follow any procedure other than the one that he or she reasonably believes will best protect the woman in her exercise of this constitutional liberty. But one need not even approach this view today to conclude that Nebraska’s law must fall. For the notion that either of these two equally gruesome procedures performed at this late stage of gestation is more akin to infanticide than the other, or that the State furthers any legitimate interest by banning one but not the other, is simply irrational. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 14.
The ultimate focus of the government here on the state interest here was some sort of "dividing line" so that we know when the fetus is born enough to be in effect an infant. The act thereafter becomes infanticide. A few justices focused him to admit that in many cases ("late term" rhetoric aside) we are dealing with pre-viable fetuses, so a "lethal act" is going to happen anyway. This line retains importance. I guess so, though honestly I do not see a compelling difference especially as long as the fetus is still partially inside the woman -- it's still her body there and the fetus/child is going to die. Anyway, this interest cannot trump the woman's health.
And, that's the rub, and why the government is trying to ignore the facts. It was left with hoping for only "as applied" challenges, when the whole point is that constitutionally there needs to be a health exception. I honestly have high hopes that the lack of a health exception will do them in. The vagueness and basic arbitrariness would convince the four, but push comes to shove, I think Kennedy will come aboard -- in some limited fashion -- to secure a health exception. There clearly are cases where it is necessary and an ultimately symbolic point (especially pre-viability) is not enough to risk the health of the mother.
Finally, a pretty good discussion on how evangelism is becoming Green -- ironically even our meth buying friend joined the cause -- can be found here (11/9). The environmental community is represented by "Melanie Griffith," but not that one. One point, also raised in Middle Church, is how the movement too often focuses on the personal as compared to collective wrongs. A somewhat ironic, sign that the problems of the "me" generation are not just some sort of left leaning secular affair.
No shock there.