Let the Slime Begin
From Drudge:
There's more on Drudge's site, including a link to factcheck.org's assessment of the ad (it's false). This coupled with the New York Times fishing for info on the adoption records of Roberts' kids is really starting to piss me off. I wonder how the fuck these people sleep at night. There must be some strong rationalization at work. They must think that their ends are so just that any means are acceptable.
Well, I don't think it's going to work. Roberts is getting through, even if they have to hammer him through, square-peg round-hole style.
This is sort of why I am a pretty disaffected law student right now. Here we have a man of amazing ability, a brilliant legal mind, and that's not enough. It's not enough that judges in general and Justices in particular read and interpret texts. It's not enough that they do their scholarly (and fairly boring) work. Nope, judges have to be policy brokers. They have to push a political ideology. Their results are all that matters. Well that's not legal reasoning. In legal reasoning, it's the trip that matters, not the ultimate destination. A lot of people aren't going to like to hear this, but Roe v Wade is a shitty piece of legal reasoning. Even some of my generally liberal law professors have said this. Casey is a bit stronger and better written, but still flawed.
Anyone who really wants to know about Roe should read The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. The majority simply decided they wanted legal abortion and then gave Justice Blackmun the job of finding it in the Constitution. In his very long opinion, he looked and looked and looked around but couldn't find it. In the end, it didn't matter. Just use substantive due process and find it that way. Ignore the magnitude of the harm portion of the Hand Formula balancing test with regards to whether or not a fetus is a living human. Just get your end result.
The funny thing is that I personally am in favor of allowing legal abortion to a point, as well as in cases of rape and incest and an exception for the mother's life. But that's a political opinion. I would make a political argument in its favor. I would be open to a democratic debate on the issue and try to persuade my fellow citizens of the merits of my position. I would not claim that the Constitution says a damn thing about it though. It's not in there. If you want it in there, check out Article V and propose an amendment.
Go ahead, NARAL. Smear a good man. It's all about getting your policy shoehorned into the Constitution.
CNN has reviewed and agreed to run a controversial ad produced by a pro-abortion groupÂs that falsely accuses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers supporting a convicted abortion clinic bomber, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The news network has agreed to a $125,000 ad buy from NARAL for a commercial which depicts a bombed out 1998 Birmingham, AL abortion clinic. The Birmingham clinic was bombed seven years after Roberts signed the legal briefing the ad question!
There's more on Drudge's site, including a link to factcheck.org's assessment of the ad (it's false). This coupled with the New York Times fishing for info on the adoption records of Roberts' kids is really starting to piss me off. I wonder how the fuck these people sleep at night. There must be some strong rationalization at work. They must think that their ends are so just that any means are acceptable.
Well, I don't think it's going to work. Roberts is getting through, even if they have to hammer him through, square-peg round-hole style.
This is sort of why I am a pretty disaffected law student right now. Here we have a man of amazing ability, a brilliant legal mind, and that's not enough. It's not enough that judges in general and Justices in particular read and interpret texts. It's not enough that they do their scholarly (and fairly boring) work. Nope, judges have to be policy brokers. They have to push a political ideology. Their results are all that matters. Well that's not legal reasoning. In legal reasoning, it's the trip that matters, not the ultimate destination. A lot of people aren't going to like to hear this, but Roe v Wade is a shitty piece of legal reasoning. Even some of my generally liberal law professors have said this. Casey is a bit stronger and better written, but still flawed.
Anyone who really wants to know about Roe should read The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. The majority simply decided they wanted legal abortion and then gave Justice Blackmun the job of finding it in the Constitution. In his very long opinion, he looked and looked and looked around but couldn't find it. In the end, it didn't matter. Just use substantive due process and find it that way. Ignore the magnitude of the harm portion of the Hand Formula balancing test with regards to whether or not a fetus is a living human. Just get your end result.
The funny thing is that I personally am in favor of allowing legal abortion to a point, as well as in cases of rape and incest and an exception for the mother's life. But that's a political opinion. I would make a political argument in its favor. I would be open to a democratic debate on the issue and try to persuade my fellow citizens of the merits of my position. I would not claim that the Constitution says a damn thing about it though. It's not in there. If you want it in there, check out Article V and propose an amendment.
Go ahead, NARAL. Smear a good man. It's all about getting your policy shoehorned into the Constitution.
