Courts and the Constitution: Stop-and-Frisk and Abortion Restrictions

Friday, November 01, 2013

Yesterday brought two major legal decisions with big implications in two states.

In Texas, a Federal Appeals Court reversed a ruling by a federal judge made just three days prior that would block key components of the state's new restrictive abortion law. The Federal Appeals Court reinstated those measures, which include requiring a doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic.

In New York City, a Federal Appeals Court halted a major decision from August that had deemed stop-and-frisk practices by New York City Police unconstitutional and in violation in the 4th and 14th Amendments. The new ruling means a delay for the monitor appointed to oversee stop-and-frisk reforms.

Jeffrey Toobin, legal analyst for The New Yorker, discusses these rulings.

Guests:

Jeffrey Toobin

Produced by:

Jillian Weinberger

Editors:

Gianna Palmer

Comments [1]

Charles

Toobin may be right about a liberal mayor like DeBlasio ending the practice of stop and frisk.

But what will be lasting, was the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel slapping down Judge Scheindlin personally, and taking away her power to game the District Court's docket by taking all of the police cases onto her docket by virtue of her having ruled in the Amadou Diallo case many years ago and thereafter taking all subsequent police cases on the basis that they were related matters.

Judge Scheindlin's abuse was such that even a panel with a majority of liberal-Democrat appointees, as was the case, wouldn't stand for it.

Judge Scheindlin will not have another chance to assert her will over the NYPD.

Nov. 01 2013 02:20 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.