Patterico's Pontifications

10/4/2005

Margaret Carlson Calls Miers the “Fifth Vote” to Overturn Roe

Filed under: Abortion,Morons — Patterico @ 10:54 pm



Margaret Carlson says that Miers will be the “fifth vote” against Roe v. Wade:

Some conservatives are loudly shocked that Bush ignored the long list of known quantities among conservative jurists in the mold of his favorites, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. It depressed Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Rush Limbaugh was so agitated Cheney gave him an interview to calm his listeners.

What those conservatives are missing is what Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel to the American Center for Law & Justice, see in Miers: a fifth vote for overturning Roe v. Wade. Bush even got Dobson’s approval beforehand.

Who are the other four, Margaret?

We have two people on the Court now who have voted to overturn Roe. Two. Scalia and Thomas. That’s it.

If Roberts is a third vote, then Miers will be a fourth.

No fifth.

Margaret Carlson: deliberately deceptive? Woefully ignorant?

Duped by the L.A. Times?

You make the call.

12 Responses to “Margaret Carlson Calls Miers the “Fifth Vote” to Overturn Roe”

  1. Margaret Carlson: deliberately deceptive? Woefully ignorant?
    Duped by the L.A. Times?

    I prefer
    D)Willfully ignorant.

    Also called doublethink by an over-quoted author.

    Veeshir (e06f00)

  2. I vote “Typical Press Hack.”

    Geek, Esq. (5dd2be)

  3. Margaret and the rest of the NOW/ EMILY’s Yeast crowd define “Roe” as inclusive of the 2000 Supreme Court decision that overturned laws banning partial birth abortion. And that decision was 5-4. I remember this quite clearly because during the 2000 election, the Gore campaign ran a series of anti-Nader ads alleging that Roe was upheld by only a 5-4 vote.

    Still, when most people think of Roe, they don’t think of third trimester abortions, and Maragret knows this. Therefore, I vote for intentionally deceptive.

    Sean P (256007)

  4. Actually, the claim that Roe was upheld by only a 5-4 vote is technically true, just highly misleading. It’s true because Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided 5-4 in 1992. It’s misleading because one of the dissenting four, Byron White, was replaced by a hard-core pro-abortionist, Ruth Bader Ginsburg the following year, and the breakdown has been 6-3 ever since. And even that assumes John Roberts would vote to overturn Roe. For all we know, the present court may be split 7-2, just like the Roe court itself was.

    Xrlq (5ffe06)

  5. I guess I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. What I meant was, the ads claimed that Roe had just been upheld by a 5-4 vote (ie, during the term immediately preceeding the 2000 election). I can’t remember the name of that opinion, but it was a 5-4 decision with Breyer, Ginsburg, Stephens, Souter & O’Conner striking down a state law banning partial birth abortion, and Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist & Kennedy (who otherwise votes with the Roe/ Casey block) voting to uphold it.

    Sean P (256007)

  6. Stenberg.

    That’s not the same thing as Roe, anyway- Roe allowed for complete bans on abortion in the third trimester, when partial birth abortions take place.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  7. Follow the “duped by the L.A. Times” link and the links therein. I discuss Stenberg and the exact voting patterns in more detail. I just get tired of saying it again and again.

    Patterico (3e0665)

  8. For all we know, the present court may be split 7-2, just like the Roe court itself was.

    I thought that was 5-4.

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  9. Clam:

    Agreed. That’s why its so disengenous of NOW to claim opposition to Stenberg (thanks for the assist) is equivilent to opposition to Roe.

    Sean P (256007)

  10. Well, Roe doesn’t really matter much in the trimesters regard- Casey did away with that framework.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  11. […] Who else? Who’s left? Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, Breyer, and Stevens. Which one of them is Ivins counting as the fifth solid anti-Roe vote? Maybe she’s still counting Rehnquist. But he’s not a Democrat, so he’s unlikely to vote after his death. She probably just read it in the L.A. Times or had lunch with Margaret Carlson. posted by: The Editors @ 12:52 pm October 6, 2005 […]

    The Unalienable Right » The “fifth vote to overturn Roe” myth spreads (7a057a)

  12. frigging morons. The people to dumb to be lawyers went into journalism school. science and engineering is for the real jocks…

    TCO (b85fd9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0720 secs.