11/27/2004
6 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Profile
Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
Contributor:
Oh,
That
Liberal Media
CaliforniaRepublic.org
Linked by:
Best of the Web
The Corner
How Appealing
Hugh Hewitt
InstaPundit
Kausfiles
Power Line
The Volokh Conspiracy
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Oct | Dec » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
Powered by WordPress.
Since when does truth matter to MSM? Truth is for the philosophers and theologians. They are newsmen. News is what they said it is.
Comment by BigFire — 11/28/2004 @ 7:18 am
Overturning Roe? Not as good an idea as you might think
Patterico correctly points out that, should a Bush-appointed Supreme Court majority overturn Roe (and Casey), it would not automatically make abortion illegal. What it would do is toss the issue back to the states, or, arguably*, to Congress. I think…
Trackback by The Interocitor — 11/28/2004 @ 10:35 am
Overturning Roe? Not as good an idea as you might think
Patterico correctly points out that, should a Bush-appointed Supreme Court majority overturn Roe (and Casey), it would not automatically make abortion illegal. What it would do is toss the issue back to the states, or, arguably*, to Congress. I think…
Trackback by The Interocitor — 11/28/2004 @ 10:39 am
Philosophers, anyway. Theologians are like journalists in this regard, except that they don’t pretend to be unbiased.
Comment by Xrlq — 11/28/2004 @ 10:46 am
Philosophers only care about truth in the abstract.
Consider the Philosopher-Kings (ok, 7 Kings, 2 Queens) on the High Court. You can’t convince me it’s all epistomology.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/28/2004 @ 11:48 pm
You think that poll’s bad? Look at the question AP was floating in early November:
“The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe. v Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision or nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?”
First three months? Try first six (for no reason at all) or nine (for almost any reason).
Technically, though, reversing Roe v Wade would make abortion immediately illegal in whichever state brought the suit. I don’t think the NYT poll results would have come out much differently if the question were changed to “do you think he is likely to appoint Justices who will vote to keep abortion legal OR Justices who will vote to permit states to make abortion against the law?”
Comment by The Raving Atheist — 12/1/2004 @ 10:58 am