Planned Parenthood's counsel, Jennifer Dalven, is really getting beat up over their challenge to the entire statute while making a very narrow argument, from Ginsburg and O'Connor to Roberts and Kennedy.
The Spectacle Blog
Justice Kennedy is arguing that a medical emergency could be addressed through the judicial bypass. Dalven is replying that once a minor arrives in the ER, it's too late for her to go to court and seek an exception to parental notification.
Scalia: Surely not the delay for a quick phone call. If NH sets up a special court with an abortion judge, why wouldn't that work?
Dalven: If it only takes an instant call to the judge to get approval for an abortion, then what's the point of the statute.
Chief Justice Roberts: Why didn't the physicians preemptively challenge the bypass process instead of the whole law then?
Dalven: No matter how fast the bypass procedure, it would be insufficient.
Roberts: So why does this implicate the vast majority of the cases? ... This is a facial challenge. There's no enforcement challenge at all.
Ginsburg: Why couldn't we rule that the NH statute is invalid to the extent that it fails to protect situations in which there's an imminent danger to health? Why wasn't that the appropriate judgment of the First Circuit in this case?
Their counsel, Jennifer Dalven, is leading with the fear of a medical emergency. "The undisputed evidence here is that ... every minute puts [the women] at risk."
Solicitor General Paul Clement: Ayotte isn't even meeting a large fraction of cases in which the statute would be invalid.
Souter: That was true in Casey.... After Casey, I don't think one could plausibly argue that Salerno is the standard....
Kennedy: If not Casey or Salerno, how should I rule?
Clement: In favor of the state... their case is based on a one in a thousand possibility.
Listening to the oral arguments in the Ayotte case: Scalia mentioned that it's rare for the Court to invalidate a law if only one application violates rights.
Will someone please explain how Jack Murtha caused an uproar and Joe Lieberman was largely ignored? That's a rhetorical question...
Meanwhile, POTUS gives another great speech at the Naval Academy and the cables have gone out of their way to let the Ds rewrite history, warp the reality of the real progress being made in Iraq, and distort the truth for political gain.
Clearly, the MSM wants Iraq to be Vietnam (and all that connotes) as badly as the folks at Moveon.org and the DNC.
Yes, a fellow member of the political graveyard elite (qualification: U.S. senator, ran for president, failed, thinks folks still care what he thinks) has spoken for John Kerry. John Kerry's PAC/shadow campaign just sent a fundraising email under Hart's name:
When John Kerry called for the withdrawal of 20,000 troops over the holidays, and the majority of remaining combat troops by the end of 2006, linking bringing troops home to clear benchmarks, you added energy and passion to that initiative.
When John Kerry called for accelerated training of Iraqi troops, greater international involvement, and improved reconstruction efforts, you amplified his voice.
Now, because of your efforts and those of all these Democratic leaders, make no mistake: the wheel has turned in the national debate over the war in Iraq. The American people have responded to the tough questions we've been asking because they had the same ones. The result is that the Bush Administration is being forced to engage in something they've gone to great lengths to avoid: an open debate about the war in Iraq.
A reporter friend of mine tasked with covering the Bush speech for a major daily newspaper which shall go unnamed here (suffice to say the outlet in question has not been all that friendly to this administration) just remarked to me that the president "hit a home run" in Annapolis and "really reclaimed a lot of momentum." The seasoned reporter was visibly moved just talking about it. I'll be interested to see if his true impression of the event makes it past his editors...