Home / General / Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive Dissonance

/
/
/
535 Views

Ann Althouse is making sense:

The difference between this case and Carhart, other than the change in the Court’s personnel and the fact that this is a federal, not a state law, is that Congress made those findings. In that light, this becomes a case about how much the Court ought to defer to a legislature when it acts in an area of individual constitutional rights and makes assertions about facts in order to define away those rights. I do not think that is territory the Court should cede to the legislative branch. It is the Court’s duty to say what rights are, and if rights are to be rights, a legislature seeking to work its will should not also have the power to structure the factual setting to make it look as though rights it wants to preclude do not exist.

Quite right; indeed, I would have nothing to disagree with except for the fact that Althouse enthusiastically supported the confirmation of the man who makes the overturning of Carhart, as the first step in the watering down of abortion rights to nothing, virtually inevitable. In this context, her now-meaningless defense of abortion rights is as hollow as Arlen Specter’s. Any supporter of Sam Alito has the blood of the gutting or overturning of Roe on their hands, period, and I’m frankly not interested in hearing their crocodile tears after the fact, as if we all didn’t know exactly what was going to happen.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar
Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :