Posted On: 02/14/2016 7:36:03 PM
Post# of 65629
I understand the argument fully. But I feel that they interpret the law unbiasedly. Let's just take one example:
Sonia Sotomayor appointed in 2009
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002)
"For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this action, though on different grounds. "
ref: http://supremecourtreview.com/default/justice/index/id/45
I just picked that one as a "quick pick". It's a great site for review. I am not disagreeing with you entirely.... I just think it needs more study instead of political prowess.
Sonia Sotomayor appointed in 2009
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002)
Quote:
This suit was brought by a domestic organization that advocates reproductive rights and by attorneys employed by the organization. Plaintiffs challenge the so-called "Mexico City Policy," pursuant to which the United States government requires foreign organizations, as a condition of receiving government funds, to agree neither to perform abortions nor to promote abortion generally. Plaintiffs maintain that these restrictions violate their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that plaintiffs lack standing under ArticleIII of the Constitution.
"For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this action, though on different grounds. "
ref: http://supremecourtreview.com/default/justice/index/id/45
I just picked that one as a "quick pick". It's a great site for review. I am not disagreeing with you entirely.... I just think it needs more study instead of political prowess.
(0)
(0)
