Monday, May 23, 2005
Supreme Court agrees to hear parental notification case
OK, this certainly isn't breaking news, as everyone has either reported this morning's surprise granting of certiorari (like CNN) in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood or commented upon it (see John Walter and Talk Left for examples). However, no one seems to have had the same reaction I had when I heard the news on talk radio:
Did the Supreme Court just weigh in on the filibuster issue?
I have little hope that this Court would suddenly see the error of its previous ways and uphold New Hampshire's parental notification law that adds a slight requirement for abortions sought by minors. However, I have to feel that the "non-political justices" might have sent a reminder to the Senate chambers as to what they are fighting for over the next few days. Think of it as justices who can't speak about political issues expressing their views through other means.
Just my honest initial reaction.
Did the Supreme Court just weigh in on the filibuster issue?
I have little hope that this Court would suddenly see the error of its previous ways and uphold New Hampshire's parental notification law that adds a slight requirement for abortions sought by minors. However, I have to feel that the "non-political justices" might have sent a reminder to the Senate chambers as to what they are fighting for over the next few days. Think of it as justices who can't speak about political issues expressing their views through other means.
Just my honest initial reaction.
Permalink posted by Rob Huddleston @ 3:46 PM 
