:: welcome to


:: A constitutional law blog by Scalia/Thomas fan David M. Wagner, M.A., J.D., Research Fellow, National Legal Foundation, and Teacher, Veritas Preparatory Academy. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the NLF or Veritas. :: bloghome | E-mail me ::

-- Eve Tushnet

"Frankfurter was born too soon for the Web, but I'm sure that, had it been possible, there would have been the equivalent of Ninomania for Frankfurter."
-- Mark Tushnet
(I agree, and commented here.)

"The preeminent Scalia blog"
-- Underneath Their Robes

 Subscribe in a reader

Site Feed

Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five!

    follow me on Twitter


    Above the Law, by David Lat



    Duncan's Con Law Course Blog

    Eve Tushnet

    Eye of Polyphemus, by Jamie Jeffords

    How Appealing

    Hugh Hewitt

    Justice Thomas Appreciation Page

    Legal Theory Blog

    Lex Communis

    Opinio Juris


    Paper Chase (from JURIST)

    Point of Law (Manhattan Inst.)

    Professor Bainbridge

    Public Discourse

    Redeeming Law, by Prof. Mike Schutt

    SCOTUS Blog

    Volokh Conspiracy

    WSJ Law Blog

    Other fine sites:

    Alexander Hamilton Inst. for Study of Western Civilization

    Ave Maria School of Law

    Center for Thomas More Studies

    Family Defense Center

    The Federalist Society

    The Founders' Constitution

    George Mason University School of Law

    Immigration and Refugee Appellate Center

    Judged: Law Firm News & Intelligence


    Law Prose (Bryan Garner)

    Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

    National Lawyers Association (alternative to ABA)

    Supreme Court decisions

    The Weekly Standard

    Something I wrote about marriage

    lawyer blogs


    :: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 ::
    A remarkable piece of New York Times-NARAL teamwork

    "Abortions rights backers," the moribund paper of record would have us believe, are experiencing "unease" about Judge Sotomayor. She might even, they allegedly fear, be that fifth vote to strike down Roe.

    OK, what is this really about? That becomes clear in the third graf: “Discussion about Roe v. Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,” a NARAL spokesperson is quoted as saying. You see? This is about making sure that an explicit commitment about abortion becomes a canonical part of the confirmation hearing process.

    Justices Roberts and Alito avoided discussing abortion and/or Roe, and they relied on the precedent of Justice Ginsburg, who -- rightly, of course -- also declined to discuss it. NARAL is trying to reverse the Ginsburg precedent.

    Meanwhile, have a look at the Sotomayor decisions that, if we are to trust the NYT (maybe I should stop right there), are considered alarming by "abortion rights advocates":
    In a 2004 case, she largely sided with some anti-abortion protesters who wanted to sue some police officers for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by using excessive force to break up demonstrations at an abortion clinic. Judge Sotomayor said the protesters deserved a day in court.
    So, to "aborton rights backers," people who allege police brutality don't even deserve a day in court if they are "anti-abortion protestors"?
    Judge Sotomayor has also ruled on several immigration cases involving people fighting deportation orders to China on the grounds that its population-control policy of forcible abortions and birth control constituted persecution.
    So "abortion rights advocates" are down with forcibly deporting women to China where they face forced abortion or sterilization, or punishment for resisting these?
    In a 2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,” she wrote, also taking note of “the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.”
    So the abortion-rights agenda means fighting that biological nature and that special reverence, and forcing dads to stay back in China even when the moms are admitted here as refugees?

    Hey, I read it in The New York Times...!

    :: David M. Wagner 10:28 PM [+] ::

    Site Meter
    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?