Comments on: Gonzales v. Carhart and Judge Easterbrook’s pickle http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/04/gonzales-v-carhart-and-judge-easterbrooks-pickle/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:42:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Antares79 http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/04/gonzales-v-carhart-and-judge-easterbrooks-pickle/#comment-11134 Antares79 Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:45:41 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/gonzales-v-carhart-and-judge-easterbrooks-pickle/#comment-11134 Is Salerno really the best starting point for evaluating facial challenges? Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) seems to discredit it for vagueness facial challenges: "the extent we have consistently articulated a clear standard for facial challenges, it is not the Salerno formulation, which has never been the decisive factor in any decision of this Court, including Salerno itself" Granted Morales deals with vagueness and not abortion, but both vagueness and abortion are (at least partially) due process challenges. Morales comes well after Rust and Akron; if Salerno itself does not apply to core due process facial challenges, why continue to tote its framework to tangential due process facial challenges such as abortion? -Ryan Alley Is Salerno really the best starting point for evaluating facial
challenges? Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) seems to discredit
it for vagueness facial challenges:

“the extent we have consistently articulated a clear standard for facial
challenges, it is not the Salerno formulation, which has never been the
decisive factor in any decision of this Court, including Salerno itself”

Granted Morales deals with vagueness and not abortion, but both
vagueness and abortion are (at least partially) due process challenges.
Morales comes well after Rust and Akron; if Salerno itself does not
apply to core due process facial challenges, why continue to tote its
framework to tangential due process facial challenges such as abortion?

-Ryan Alley

]]>