I called Lance Ito’s courtroom today. Sure enough, they’re still on the ninth floor, contrary to the reporting of the L.A. Times, which had put the courtroom on the fifth floor.
The L.A. Times reports:
This might sound familiar: President Bush may decide this week on whom to nominate to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court’s swing vote on issues such as abortion, affirmative action and religion.
Very clever. We’ve been through this before: the constitutional right to abortion will remain at 6-3 (at best) even after the confirmation of John Roberts. Justice O’Connor is most certainly not the “swing vote” on whether abortion will remain constitutionally protected. But if you pressed the authors and editors of this article, I’m sure they would claim that they never meant to imply that she is. They would tell you that they meant simply that Justice O’Connor is the swing vote on certain abortion restrictions, such as a possible ban on partial-birth abortion.
Of course, they could have said “certain abortion restrictions” instead of “abortion,” but that’s two more words, and one of them is kinda long, and newspapers have space issues, dontcha know.
It just so happens that phrasing it this way allows them to fool unsophisticated people who aren’t following the issue closely into thinking that O’Connor is the only thing standing between Roe v. Wade and oblivion. But I’m sure they didn’t mean for anyone to take it that way. Right?
You weekday-only readers missed a busy weekend here. You could just scroll down, but for the scroll-impaired, here’s a summary:
I am once again asking readers to tell us about themselves. We have pretty good participation now, with 114 comments as of the publishing of this post. If you have never left a comment mentioning something about yourself — especially if you’re a lurker — go here and leave one!
I unearth a buried L.A. Times story that reports that whites — not blacks — are disproportionately killed in Iraq. Hear that, Charlie Rangel?
There were a couple of posts about gay marriage this weekend. Dafydd ab Hugh had a post purporting to debunk certain “myths” about gay marriage, and I took a crack at refuting his post here. Although I support gay marriage, I praised an L.A. Times editorial writer for taking a stance in favor of Arnold’s veto of the gay marriage legislation — legislation which was passed on contravention of the California constitution. A debate is still raging on these and other topics in this thread, with 146 comments as of the publishing of this post.
Apparently taking potshots at easy targets was the theme this weekend, because I also mock Jimmy Carter.
Continuing the theme, I make fun of an L.A. Times reporter for not knowing what floor he was on.
I point readers to John Roberts’s answers to written questions.
I note Alex Kozinski whapping a sleazy lawyer good.
It’s another online politics test. Apparently I’m a social moderate and an economic conservative. Sounds about right.