How Low Can NARAL Go?
In an attempt to push "profile in cowardice" Lincoln Chafee (R[nominally]-R.I.) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to vote against John Roberts, MSNBC reports that NARAL is running an ad Rhode Island and Maine. It alleges that John Roberts is a judge "whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."
The factual jumping off point for this incredibly serious (and entirely inaccurate) claim? That Roberts, while principal deputy solicitor general, filed a brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (1993). Did Judge Roberts argue that violence committed in the course of abortion contests was A-OK, as the ad suggests? Of course not. He merely argued that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 can't properly be applied to abortion protesters because opposition to abortion doesn't constitute discrimination against a "class of people" within the meaning of the 1871 law.
Did Roberts argue that abortion related violence shouldn't be punished? Again, of course not. He argued that state penalties would be sufficient to punish and deter such violence. And the Supreme Court agreed with him, 5 1/2 to 3 1/2 (Souter concurred in part and dissented in part).
As anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows, arguing for state rather than federal criminal penalties doesn't constitute "excusing violence." If it did, certainly Roper v. Simmons (abolishing the death penalty for those under age 18, no matter what the crime) would signal an intent to "excuse violence against other Americans" perpetrated by minors.
Don't misunderstand -- Roper is a disgrace (in large part because it is based substantially on international law, which should have no bearing on constitutional interpretation in the U.S.). But forbidding one penalty while allowing others doesn't mean Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens intended to "excuse" murder, rape and the rest of the formerly-punishable-by-death crimes committed by underaged felons.
And even less would it mean that the lawyer(s) who argued on behalf of the criminals in the Roper case condoned the behavior at issue.
Similarly, just because John Roberts argues that violent abortion protestors should be punished under state, rather than federal, law doesn't mean he condones abortion violence. Is this garbage really the best that NARAL can do?
And if Lincoln Chafee does NARAL's bidding, and votes against Roberts, there's no reason to keep him around. None (control of the Senate doesn't hinge on his race). With Republicans like Chafee, who needs Democrats?
The factual jumping off point for this incredibly serious (and entirely inaccurate) claim? That Roberts, while principal deputy solicitor general, filed a brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (1993). Did Judge Roberts argue that violence committed in the course of abortion contests was A-OK, as the ad suggests? Of course not. He merely argued that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 can't properly be applied to abortion protesters because opposition to abortion doesn't constitute discrimination against a "class of people" within the meaning of the 1871 law.
Did Roberts argue that abortion related violence shouldn't be punished? Again, of course not. He argued that state penalties would be sufficient to punish and deter such violence. And the Supreme Court agreed with him, 5 1/2 to 3 1/2 (Souter concurred in part and dissented in part).
As anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows, arguing for state rather than federal criminal penalties doesn't constitute "excusing violence." If it did, certainly Roper v. Simmons (abolishing the death penalty for those under age 18, no matter what the crime) would signal an intent to "excuse violence against other Americans" perpetrated by minors.
Don't misunderstand -- Roper is a disgrace (in large part because it is based substantially on international law, which should have no bearing on constitutional interpretation in the U.S.). But forbidding one penalty while allowing others doesn't mean Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens intended to "excuse" murder, rape and the rest of the formerly-punishable-by-death crimes committed by underaged felons.
And even less would it mean that the lawyer(s) who argued on behalf of the criminals in the Roper case condoned the behavior at issue.
Similarly, just because John Roberts argues that violent abortion protestors should be punished under state, rather than federal, law doesn't mean he condones abortion violence. Is this garbage really the best that NARAL can do?
And if Lincoln Chafee does NARAL's bidding, and votes against Roberts, there's no reason to keep him around. None (control of the Senate doesn't hinge on his race). With Republicans like Chafee, who needs Democrats?
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home