Get a DUI Attorney in San Diego to Avoid DUI Arrests

Image : http://www.flickr.com

Driving under the Influence or DUI is a very serious offense. If you are arrested under this citation means that you have failed either a field sobriety test, or urine, breath analyzer or blood alcohol level test given by the police. A DUI conviction means that you will either serve time and pay a fee and have a permanent record which is something we don't want to have.

DUI arrests have been rampant especially in California where the best mode of transportation is by car. The wide highways and long distances, as well as easy access to vehicles, make it both a nice place to drive and an easy target for cops to look for suspicious moving vehicles. Those that seem to swerve or are moving too quickly will easily be pulled over and from that moment on, the driver may be grilled about his driving methods and perhaps asked to take a field sobriety test. What many don't know is that a field sobriety test is something that is voluntarily done and those who are aware of this situation may refuse to take the field test. If asked to, the driver may take another form of test. One may take the breath analyzer test or the urine test. These tests may have its form of inconsistencies as well. If a person has burped or regurgitated, he is allowed at least 15 minutes before taking the breath analyzer test. This is to insure that the test is not tainted as acids from the burp may affect the test. Also, the urine test may also be not as reliable and may not be upheld in court.

San Diego for instance has around 16000 cases of DUI instances being held every year. This city is notorious for having a high amount of DUI cases because of its proximity to the Mexican Border and in that instance, there is an assumption that those Americans coming from the border, especially in the early mornings or after long weekend, may have had one drink too many. In such instances, finding a DUI attorney in San Diego is the best option for those who are arrested. A specialized DUI attorney from San Diego knows the ins and outs of such an arrest and is a great resource for anyone arrested from getting convicted. These attorneys will look into the procedure and process of how the evidence was obtained and may find something that may be of use in your defense.

It is always better to be sober and avoid drinking altogether before driving and if you do drink, make sure that there is enough time before you sober up.

See Also : Student Loan Insurance, Auto Insurance Digital Frame Car insurance quotation dui attorney san diego

The importance of Document Review in the legal field

Image : http://www.flickr.com

revision of the document is an essential task in advance of trial or during the discovery phase of the litigation process carried out. In the process of examining the documents lawyers legal documents reviewed for their relevance to the case and the adequacy of the right to evaluate. Thanks to electronic data such as e-mail, voice messages and instant messages, their importance in the legal field has acquired a particular importance, creating a substantial burden for lawyers.

InLater stages of the process can be described as privileged documents on the basis of privileged attorney-client or work product. Each document can be held to review or privileged to examine the contents.

Advantages and disadvantages of technology

revision of the document is a long and difficult. electronic databases have their greater efficiency, as thousands of pages of documents in seconds can be reviewed. At the same time, are electronic databasesalso exponentially increased the amount of documents, creating a workload accumulated, which can quickly overwhelming.

High Stakes

The task of examining the documents of great responsibility. Documents that may be erroneously unwanted disclosure of important information will result, leading to very undesirable results. Important information can protect a client can be neglected, a case at risk based on poor research alone.

Custom DevelopmentBy

Most of the audit documentation by a team of associates with a lawyer to follow the process done. This is done to save money. Businesses prefer to hire paralegals because they cost less. Instead done by staff lawyers, a document usually write a critical step in the contract. Although paralegals can not enjoy the legal payment, often the work can be done at home thanks to the convenience of the Internet and information technology.

Document Review is now a center ofMany legal career

With the advent of electronic data processing, the amount of the requested documents to the lawyers to be reviewed has a significant impact on. Because the work is done on the basis of contracts, payment is not comparable to a safe location in an existing law. Yet, in an increasingly competitive labor market for lawyers, provides a constant workload that is consistent and reliable.

Related : Ferret game Blog remortgage lenders consolidate school loans student loan consolidation rate

Facts and Frequently Asked Questions about dangerous drugs

Image : http://www.flickr.com

Millions of Americans rely on prescription medications to help manage your arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, psychiatric illness, hypertension, chronic pain, lung disease, and many other medical conditions. You have to trust the drug companies for safe, effective products to be developed. Too often, that trust is misplaced. Every year thousands of patients who are severely injured, and some were killed by the toxic effects of drugs and side effects are irreversible. This article can helpMore information about dangerous drugs.

Who is most at risk of dangerous drugs?

The elderly have a higher risk of dangerous drugs than the general population, since a large percentage of elderly take various drugs. The average senior takes five fifty-six prescribed medication, in addition to over-the-counter drugs. People aged 65 and over, however, only 14% of the U.S. population, but it takes more than 33% of all prescription drugs. This increased consumption isSeniors, many different drugs, and also increases the risk of dangerous interactions with other drugs.

If FDA approval means that a drug is safe?

FDA approval means that the U. S. Food and Drug Administration scientists have determined that the benefits of risk when the drug is released in the general population prevail. During the last phase of clinical trials before approval, as many of 3,000 people taking the drug. But some serious side effects are rare. If aSide effect occurred in one of 10,000 people, for example, the manufacturer and the FDA is unable to learn the side effects until the drug was approved, and hundreds of thousands of people took .

What is an adverse event?

The FDA defines an adverse event as adverse events associated with use of a drug to a patient. "

How does the FDA about side effects?

Doctors and health workers in general reportAdverse reactions to pharmaceutical companies, which are then legally required to report serious relay to the FDA within 15 days. Health professionals have to communicate if it leads to death, disability, hospitalization, life-threatening, causes a congenital anomaly or requires treatment to prevent permanent damage. Approved for the first three years after a drug, the drug manufacturer must also all its quarterly side effects to the FDA, and after three years, these reportsmust be provided annually.

How do I know if a drug is dangerous?

The FDA issued a notice of adverse events on their website, and these are frequently reported on the Internet, in newspapers and television news. drug manufacturers often warns health workers when they learn of adverse events associated with their products.

How do I know if my symptoms are the result of a dangerous drug?

For questions aboutThe symptoms and side effects, and any other aspect of your health you should consult your doctor. Your doctor can determine if a drug has led or contributed to your symptoms.

When I was injured or a loved one has been injured or died of drugs, what can I do?

You should, as soon as possible to talk with an experienced attorney to determine whether drugs may have a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the drug.

How important dopromptly?

Acting in a position soon to not make the difference between a case and a case. There are no time limits specified limitation period, with laws that establish rules for lodging complaints, which vary from state to state. . If you or a loved one has a serious injury or a loved one has died suffered a dangerous drug, you should not delay to contact an attorney. If the limitation period has expired, your right to exercise a right can neverbarred.

How difficult it is to manufacturer to win a claim against a drug?

Pharmaceutical companies are often large multinational companies with the staff of legal personality and substantial financial resources to defend their products. The upper hand against an opponent determined and well financed, you need an experienced pharmaceutical lawyer on your side, and a law firm that is committed to securing justice for their clients.

My Links : Blog Digital Frame Hipmore Endowment Selling Compare auto insurance company data recovery seattle

FTC Names Dirty Dozen Email Scams

Image : http://www.flickr.com

The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for issuing and enforcing rules for consumer issues on the Internet. As part of this process, the FTC has published a list of the 12 scams you are most likely to receive as email.

The Dirty Dozen Scams

The "dirty dozen" are:

1. Business opportunities

These business opportunities make it sound easy to start a business that will bring lots of income without much work or cash outlay. The solicitations trumpet unbelievable earnings claims $1,000 a day or more without doing any work. Many business opportunity solicitations claim to offer a way to make money in an Internet-related business. Short on details but long on promises, these messages usually offer a telephone number to call for more information. In many cases, you'll be told to leave your name and telephone number so that a salesperson can call you back with the sales pitch.

The scam: Many of these are illegal pyramid schemes masquerading as legitimate opportunities to earn money.

2. Bulk email

Bulk email solicitations offer to sell you lists of email addresses, by the millions, to which you can send your own bulk solicitations. Some offer software that automates the sending of email messages to thousands or millions of recipients. Others offer the service of sending bulk email solicitations on your behalf. Some of these offers say, or imply, that you can make a lot of money using this marketing method.

The problem: Sending bulk email violates the terms of service of most Internet service providers. If you use one of the automated email programs, your ISP may shut you down. In addition, inserting a false return address into your solicitations, as some of the automated programs allow you to do, may land you in legal hot water with the owner of the address's domain name. There are also very strict rules, known as the CAN-SPAM Act, regulating bulk email marketing.

3. Chain letters

You're asked to send a small amount of money ($5 to $20) to each of four or five names on a list, replace one of the names on the list with your own, and then forward the revised message via bulk email. The letter may claim that the scheme is legal, that it's been reviewed or approved by the government; or it may refer to sections of U.S. law that legitimize the scheme.

The scam: Chain letters are almost always illegal and nearly all of the people who participate lose their money. The fact that a "product" such as a report on how to make money fast may be changing hands in the transaction does not change the legality of these schemes.

4. Work-at-home schemes

Envelope-stuffing solicitations promise steady income for minimal labor-for example, you'll earn $2 each time you fold a brochure and seal it in an envelope. Craft assembly work schemes often require an investment of hundreds of dollars in equipment or supplies, and many hours of your time producing goods for a company that has promised to buy them.

The scam: You'll pay a small fee to get started in the envelope-stuffing business. Then, you'll learn that the email sender never had real employment to offer. Instead, you'll get instructions on how to send the same envelope-stuffing ad on your own. If you earn any money, it will be from others who fall for the scheme you're perpetuating.

5. Health and diet scams

Pills that let you lose weight without exercising or changing your diet, herbal formulas that liquefy your fat cells so that they are absorbed by your body, and cures for impotence and hair loss are among the scams flooding email boxes.

The scam: These gimmicks don't work. The fact is that successful weight loss requires a reduction in calories and an increase in physical activity. Beware of case histories from "cured" consumers claiming amazing results and testimonials from "famous" medical experts you've never heard of.

6. Effortless income

The trendiest get-rich-quick schemes offer unlimited profits exchanging money on world currency markets; newsletters describing a variety of easy-money opportunities; the perfect sales letter; and the secret to making $4,000 in one day.

The scam: If these systems worked, wouldn't everyone be using them? The thought of easy money may be appealing, but success generally requires hard work.

7. Free goods

Some email messages offer valuable goods-for example, computers, other electronic items, and long-distance phone cards-for free. You're asked to pay a fee to join a club, then told that to earn the offered goods, you have to bring in a certain number of participants. You're paying for the right to earn income by recruiting other participants, but your payoff is in goods, not money.

The scam: Most of these messages are covering up pyramid schemes, operations that inevitably collapse. The payoff goes to the promoters and little or none to you.

8. Investment opportunities

Investment schemes promise outrageously high rates of return with no risk. Many are Ponzi schemes, in which early investors are paid off with money contributed by later investors. This makes the early investors believe that the system actually works, and encourages them to invest even more.

The scam: Ponzi schemes eventually collapse because there isn't enough money coming in to continue simulating earnings. Other schemes are a good investment for the promoters, but no for participants.

9. Cable descrambler kits

For a small sum of money, you can buy a kit to assemble a cable descrambler that supposedly allows you to receive cable television transmissions without paying any subscription fee.

The scam: The device that you build probably won't work. Most of the cable TV systems in the U.S. use technology that these devices can't crack. What's more, even if it worked, stealing service from a cable television company is illegal.

10. Guaranteed loans or credit, on easy terms

Some email messages offer home-equity loans that don't require equity in your home. Usually, these are said to be offered by offshore banks. Sometimes they are combined with pyramid schemes, which offer you an opportunity to make money by attracting new participants to the scheme.

The scams: The home equity loans turn out to be useless lists of lenders who will turn you down. The promised credit cards never come through, and the pyramid schemes always collapse.

11. Credit repair

Credit repair scams offer to erase accurate negative information from your credit file so you can qualify for a credit card, auto loan, home mortgage, or a job.

The scam: The scam artists who promote these services can't deliver. Only time, a deliberate effort, and a personal debt repayment plan will improve your credit. The companies that advertise credit repair services appeal to consumers with poor credit histories. Not only can't they provide you with a clean credit record, but they also may be encouraging you to violate federal law. If you follow their advice by lying on a loan or credit application, misrepresenting your Social Security number, or getting an Employer Identification Number under false pretenses, you will be committing fraud.

12. Vacation prize promotions

Electronic certificates congratulating you on "winning" a fabulous vacation for a very attractive price are among the scams arriving in your email. Some say you have been "specially selected" for this opportunity.

The scam: Most unsolicited commercial email goes to thousands or millions of recipients at a time. Often, the cruise ship you're booked on may look more like a tug boat. The hotel accommodations likely are shabby, and you may be required to pay more for an upgrade. Scheduling the vacation at the time you want it also may require an additional fee.

In Closing

Don't check your common sense at the door simply because you are surfing the web. If it seems to good to be true, it is. Don't fall victim to these scams.

See Also : Insurance, Auto Insurance Ferret Blog chicago injury lawyers For structured settlement

ATV - the most dangerous vehicles

Image : http://www.flickr.com

Off-road vehicles, ATVs are some of the most dangerous vehicles ever sold to American consumers. They are known for frequent rollovers, even at very low speeds and very low levels.

Hundreds of ATV riders and passengers have been injured or killed when their vehicle overturning. The most common injuries such as broken limbs and crushed, were the driver's legs, ankles and feet. The lesions are often so severe that amputation was necessary.Drivers and passengers were killed when the ATV rolled over them and beat them. Because of their size, children are particularly vulnerable in ATV rollover, and many children lost their lives riding in an ATV

ATV safety is a major concern, since Honda introduced the first ATV in the United States was in 1971. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission statistics started the ATV injuries and deaths in 1982 and has documented more than 2 million injured in ATVAccidents, deaths in 2004 and 8000, the latest year for which statistics are available about 136,100 ATV injuries in U.S. hospital emergency room are treated, and 767 people died in ATV fatalities. In 2005, the risk of injury was 171.5 injuries per 10,000 four-wheel off-road use. The risk of death in 2004 was 1.1 deaths per 10,000 four-wheel in use.

Risks to children in ATV for children under 16 years are the most vulnerable group of ATV riders with more than one quarterAll ATV accidents and deaths. called The American Academy of Pediatrics said ATV use by children, "the perfect recipe for tragedy, and in 2000 the Academy made a statement recommending against the use of ATVs by children under 16 years "The safe use of ATVs requires the same ability or better, the insight and experience required to operate a car." The American College of Orthopedic Surgeons, whose members are doctors see the results of accidents Children call in ATVs childrenThe use of ATVs, "a significant risk to health."

The cost of these ATV injuries and deaths are significant, not only for families whose loved ones are injured or killed, but the general public. The U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission estimated that more taxpayers and employers pay 3 billion dollars annually in medical costs for ATV violations by government and private insurance

Industry Leaves Riders ATV safety issues were safety and not put a tooth in ATV sales. ATVtoday $ 5 billion dollar industry in the United States, and ATV manufacturers have even created their own organization, the ATV Safety Institute. The Institute recognizes that the ATV can tip and roll, but roll back the responsibility for damage to the driver. When the driver noticed certain guiding principles, says the incidents are few and far between. The implication: serious and fatal accidents are the fault of the driver.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has not testedSingle-ATV for stability since 1991. Purchasers and users of ATVs now take on the market, the manufacturer, the word that their vehicles are safe for many riders and ATV riders, this hypothesis has become dangerous and sometimes fatal.

Tags : Insurance, Auto Insurance federal criminal defense attorneys newyork mortgages

A Jurist's Defining Moment

Image : http://www.flickr.com

Some, supposedly, legal matters defy the efforts of conscience prone jurists to place them under the knife of juridical dissection. Take, for instance, the sexual practices of consenting adults in the privacy of a bedroom. Just thirty years ago, the sodomy laws of ten of the thirteen original states made anal intercourse between homosexuals and between heterosexual men and women a crime. Then along came state Supreme Court decisions declaring such laws unconstitutional with the admonition that individual privacy is sacrosanct under the U.S. and state Constitutions. The "moral" laws, as they were commonly called, had been strictly enforced under 17th Century colonial jurisdictions when there was not a constitutional separation of church and state. The early Massachusetts Bay Colony was governed under puritanical law for nearly a hundred years in accordance with what the ruling Puritans considered as divine decrees set forth in the Bible. From 1640 until around 1750, a strict biblical code of morality was systematically enforced in the North American coastal region that was called New England, which was carried over into common law and eventually codified into state penal codes. Even after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, these "moral laws" were retained by Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island, the violation of which was criminal in nature. But, despite their statutory presence, the enforceability of such laws after 1789, limiting the expression of affection between mature consenting individuals, remained essentially negligible. The impractical effect of laws passed by the federal and state legislatures with the intent of proscribing intimately personal relationships and processes, such as inter-racial marriage and abortion, is summed up in the sage expression, you can not legislate morality. In order to insure that such laws are never declared constitutional and enforced upon the people of the American republic, the federal judiciary was established. And the highest court in the land is the U.S. Supreme Court, where constitutionality is ultimately and finally determined.

Perhaps conservative federal judges, selected to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, go through a refiner's fire, of sorts, causing the individual jurist to realize the true meaning of Henry David Thoreau's motto, "That government is best that governs least." To have in one's hand the voting power to limit the personal freedom of an entire nation of people is quite an awesome responsibility. Such power causes the sincerely unbiased justice to think twice, if not thrice, about reversing previous decisions of the Supreme Court, to render them unconstitutional in favor of laws restricting civil rights. Roe v. Wade is such a decision which, if reversed, will affect the lives of millions of pregnant women throughout the country. I must believe that a majority of the "Brethren," who comprised the Supreme Court in 1973, voted their conscience in stating that the federal government has no authority to legally dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. There might have also existed in their minds an additional consideration about the inappropriateness of attempts to legislate morality. Perhaps reflection on the poignant history of religion meddling in civil and criminal law, and the human death and destruction caused thereby, prods the prudent legal scholar to advocate and retain laws which are not predicated upon religious values and traditions.

The presumed predictability of jurists, judges, and legal scholars to follow particular conservative and liberal patterns of legal determination has historically come back to ironically bite expectant American presidents in their hind parts. Of all the people to be labeled as either conservative or liberal constructionists, seasoned jurists sincerely dedicated to a case-by-case analysis of federal issues are not among them. President Theodore Roosevelt presumed that Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. could be relied on politically to endorse and advance his trust-busting agenda. In fact, according to Texas A&M historian H.W. Brands, Roosevelt's intention for appointing Holmes, in 1902, to the high court was for Holmes to vote in accordance with presidential policy. Two years later, however, Holmes proved to be an independently minded jurist when he dissented along with the Supreme Court minority against the position of the government in the case of Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 U.S. 400 (1904). This put a rift between Roosevelt and Holmes which became substantially wider when Holmes, ten years later, commented on his dissent in the Northern Securities case and repeated authoritatively a statement by a contemporary that, "what the boys like about Roosevelt is that he doesn't give a damn about the law."

Perhaps this is what the boys on the Hill are saying about George W. Bush and his inner-circle of cronies. Perhaps Bush's appointment of John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court is a statement of his presumption that Roberts will vote predictably in accordance with the President's political expectations. Roberts has made quite a record for himself during his time working for the Executive Branch. He has it very plain concerning his unwavering stand on abortion rights. His ultra-conservative point of view has been established through the continual support he has given to militant abortion protesters in federal cases. As a Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts advocated the rights of abortion protesters to block access of women to reproductive health care clinics, a legal right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In the case of Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (No 90-985), Roberts argued as amicus curiae (friends of the court) for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely and forcibly blocked access of patients to reproductive health care clinics. In his intervening argument, Roberts asserted that the deliberate and forceful acts of the protesters did not amount to discrimination against women, even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion.

It would be interesting, if possible, to place Judge Roberts back in time to a circumstance where Afro-Americans were barred forcibly by a group of white people from patronizing a public theatre and a Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of the act ensued. Would he have then submitted to the Supreme Court what he asserted in the Bray case, that the deliberate and forceful acts of the protesters did not amount to discrimination against black people? I can see bias written all over Roberts as he presents himself to the Senate for confirmation. If the Senate cannot examine his Justice Department and judicial records and positively conclude that he made up his mind decades ago about the constitutionality of abortion, school prayer, and the general application of 5th and 14th Amendments to civil rights issues, while he was a sassy government attorney for the conservative consensus, there is something awry in the confirmation process.

The human rights of women regarding the disposition of their bodies are much too important an issue to be relegated to the capricious whims of a Republican-controlled Congress. Laws which attempt to classify a fetus inside of a woman as an entity protected by the U.S. Constitution are sorely lacking precedent, for the Constitution mentions only two categories of individuals protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments. These are those who have either been born or naturalized, and the unborn are not mentioned at all.

Natural and induced abortions have occurred since the advent of man. The induced procedure was performed frequently in the days of the venerable Thomas Jefferson, who obviously didn't consider it an important enough issue to discuss publicly or in his personal writings. In fact, abortion didn't become a controversial subject of social and religious debate until the middle of the 20th Century. At that time, a religious revivalism was occurring throughout the United States allowing political candidates to use the popularity of moral issues, predicated on religious principle, to attract rank-and-file voters. If the popular 1950's radio evangelist preached that abortion was tantamount to murder and should be outlawed, and had influence over the minds of millions of American citizens, the pragmatic politician jumped at the opportunity to endorse the evangelist and the doctrines he taught in order to garner votes. Money has always been the mother's milk of politics, and, by riding the popular social, moral, and religious issues, the shrewd politician can effectively use that money to buy his way into state and federal office. But just because a social issue, such as abortion, is given religious credence by evangelists and career politicians, the issue doesn't, in any way, become a theological matter. This is what a discerning Supreme Court justice will have to seriously consider before casting a vote to reverse or affirm Roe v Wade. A sitting President cannot expect a prudent and unbiased justice to vote according to the political and religious winds blowing in favor of, or against, a particular standing Supreme Court precedent. Perhaps that is why he has nominated Mr. Roberts to be a rubber stamp for the neo-conservative agenda.

See Also : Insurance, Auto Insurance Student Loan TH55

A Jurist's Defining Moment

Image : http://www.flickr.com

Some, supposedly, legal matters defy the efforts of conscience prone jurists to place them under the knife of juridical dissection. Take, for instance, the sexual practices of consenting adults in the privacy of a bedroom. Just thirty years ago, the sodomy laws of ten of the thirteen original states made anal intercourse between homosexuals and between heterosexual men and women a crime. Then along came state Supreme Court decisions declaring such laws unconstitutional with the admonition that individual privacy is sacrosanct under the U.S. and state Constitutions. The "moral" laws, as they were commonly called, had been strictly enforced under 17th Century colonial jurisdictions when there was not a constitutional separation of church and state. The early Massachusetts Bay Colony was governed under puritanical law for nearly a hundred years in accordance with what the ruling Puritans considered as divine decrees set forth in the Bible. From 1640 until around 1750, a strict biblical code of morality was systematically enforced in the North American coastal region that was called New England, which was carried over into common law and eventually codified into state penal codes. Even after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, these "moral laws" were retained by Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island, the violation of which was criminal in nature. But, despite their statutory presence, the enforceability of such laws after 1789, limiting the expression of affection between mature consenting individuals, remained essentially negligible. The impractical effect of laws passed by the federal and state legislatures with the intent of proscribing intimately personal relationships and processes, such as inter-racial marriage and abortion, is summed up in the sage expression, you can not legislate morality. In order to insure that such laws are never declared constitutional and enforced upon the people of the American republic, the federal judiciary was established. And the highest court in the land is the U.S. Supreme Court, where constitutionality is ultimately and finally determined.

Perhaps conservative federal judges, selected to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, go through a refiner's fire, of sorts, causing the individual jurist to realize the true meaning of Henry David Thoreau's motto, "That government is best that governs least." To have in one's hand the voting power to limit the personal freedom of an entire nation of people is quite an awesome responsibility. Such power causes the sincerely unbiased justice to think twice, if not thrice, about reversing previous decisions of the Supreme Court, to render them unconstitutional in favor of laws restricting civil rights. Roe v. Wade is such a decision which, if reversed, will affect the lives of millions of pregnant women throughout the country. I must believe that a majority of the "Brethren," who comprised the Supreme Court in 1973, voted their conscience in stating that the federal government has no authority to legally dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. There might have also existed in their minds an additional consideration about the inappropriateness of attempts to legislate morality. Perhaps reflection on the poignant history of religion meddling in civil and criminal law, and the human death and destruction caused thereby, prods the prudent legal scholar to advocate and retain laws which are not predicated upon religious values and traditions.

The presumed predictability of jurists, judges, and legal scholars to follow particular conservative and liberal patterns of legal determination has historically come back to ironically bite expectant American presidents in their hind parts. Of all the people to be labeled as either conservative or liberal constructionists, seasoned jurists sincerely dedicated to a case-by-case analysis of federal issues are not among them. President Theodore Roosevelt presumed that Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. could be relied on politically to endorse and advance his trust-busting agenda. In fact, according to Texas A&M historian H.W. Brands, Roosevelt's intention for appointing Holmes, in 1902, to the high court was for Holmes to vote in accordance with presidential policy. Two years later, however, Holmes proved to be an independently minded jurist when he dissented along with the Supreme Court minority against the position of the government in the case of Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 U.S. 400 (1904). This put a rift between Roosevelt and Holmes which became substantially wider when Holmes, ten years later, commented on his dissent in the Northern Securities case and repeated authoritatively a statement by a contemporary that, "what the boys like about Roosevelt is that he doesn't give a damn about the law."

Perhaps this is what the boys on the Hill are saying about George W. Bush and his inner-circle of cronies. Perhaps Bush's appointment of John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court is a statement of his presumption that Roberts will vote predictably in accordance with the President's political expectations. Roberts has made quite a record for himself during his time working for the Executive Branch. He has it very plain concerning his unwavering stand on abortion rights. His ultra-conservative point of view has been established through the continual support he has given to militant abortion protesters in federal cases. As a Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts advocated the rights of abortion protesters to block access of women to reproductive health care clinics, a legal right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In the case of Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (No 90-985), Roberts argued as amicus curiae (friends of the court) for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely and forcibly blocked access of patients to reproductive health care clinics. In his intervening argument, Roberts asserted that the deliberate and forceful acts of the protesters did not amount to discrimination against women, even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion.

It would be interesting, if possible, to place Judge Roberts back in time to a circumstance where Afro-Americans were barred forcibly by a group of white people from patronizing a public theatre and a Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of the act ensued. Would he have then submitted to the Supreme Court what he asserted in the Bray case, that the deliberate and forceful acts of the protesters did not amount to discrimination against black people? I can see bias written all over Roberts as he presents himself to the Senate for confirmation. If the Senate cannot examine his Justice Department and judicial records and positively conclude that he made up his mind decades ago about the constitutionality of abortion, school prayer, and the general application of 5th and 14th Amendments to civil rights issues, while he was a sassy government attorney for the conservative consensus, there is something awry in the confirmation process.

The human rights of women regarding the disposition of their bodies are much too important an issue to be relegated to the capricious whims of a Republican-controlled Congress. Laws which attempt to classify a fetus inside of a woman as an entity protected by the U.S. Constitution are sorely lacking precedent, for the Constitution mentions only two categories of individuals protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments. These are those who have either been born or naturalized, and the unborn are not mentioned at all.

Natural and induced abortions have occurred since the advent of man. The induced procedure was performed frequently in the days of the venerable Thomas Jefferson, who obviously didn't consider it an important enough issue to discuss publicly or in his personal writings. In fact, abortion didn't become a controversial subject of social and religious debate until the middle of the 20th Century. At that time, a religious revivalism was occurring throughout the United States allowing political candidates to use the popularity of moral issues, predicated on religious principle, to attract rank-and-file voters. If the popular 1950's radio evangelist preached that abortion was tantamount to murder and should be outlawed, and had influence over the minds of millions of American citizens, the pragmatic politician jumped at the opportunity to endorse the evangelist and the doctrines he taught in order to garner votes. Money has always been the mother's milk of politics, and, by riding the popular social, moral, and religious issues, the shrewd politician can effectively use that money to buy his way into state and federal office. But just because a social issue, such as abortion, is given religious credence by evangelists and career politicians, the issue doesn't, in any way, become a theological matter. This is what a discerning Supreme Court justice will have to seriously consider before casting a vote to reverse or affirm Roe v Wade. A sitting President cannot expect a prudent and unbiased justice to vote according to the political and religious winds blowing in favor of, or against, a particular standing Supreme Court precedent. Perhaps that is why he has nominated Mr. Roberts to be a rubber stamp for the neo-conservative agenda.

Thanks To : Ferret Hipmore Life assurance quotation treatment of mesothelioma