Chicago Law Professor Gives Stunningly Incompetent Summary of Partial-Birth Abortion Decision
University of Chicago Law School professor Geoffrey Stone has this jaw-droppingly incompetent analysis of Gonzales v. Carhart, the partial-birth abortion decision:
Gonzales reversed an earlier decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, in which the Court had held a virtually identical state law unconstitutional, primarily because it failed to include an exception to protect the health of the woman.
In the majority’s view, the critical difference was that in enacting the federal law Congress made several findings to support the legislation. The majority accepted those findings even though, as Justice Ginsburg observed in an unusually scathing dissent, those findings were nothing more than political nonsense.
If I were grading Professor Stone’s exam paper, I would give him an “F.”
Here is a passage from page 35 of the majority opinion:
In reaching the conclusion the Act does not require a health exception we reject certain arguments made by the parties on both sides of these cases. On the one hand, the Attorney General urges us to uphold the Act on the basis of the congressional findings alone. Brief for Petitioner in No. 05–380, at 23. Although we review congressional factfinding under a deferential standard, we do not in the circumstances here place dispositive weight on Congress’ findings. The Court retains an independent constitutional duty to review factual findings where constitutional rights are at stake. See Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 60 (1932) (“In cases brought to enforce constitutional rights, the judicial power of the United States necessarily extends to the independent determination of all questions, both of fact and law, necessary to the performance of that supreme function”).
Compare the two passages I have bolded. You can go back and add all the context you like, and it won’t change a thing. Stone got it dead wrong.
A prospective law student who summarized the case this way should be encouraged to pursue another profession. The fact that a highly respected professor at one of the best law schools in the country could produce this account is stunning.
Prof. Stone’s post is an embarrassment to the University of Chicago Law School.
I can hear the good Professor now:
“Why should I have to READ the whole decision? Have you SEEN IT?? It’s, like, over 60 pages long!! Besides, I’ve got the NARAL talking points on my email. They were only 12 bullet points long. That is all the legal analysis anyone needs anyway.
Phew! Typing this has really tired me out.
I’m gonna have a nice long lie down now.”
Rich Horton (8018ee) — 4/20/2007 @ 8:10 pmI have had a high regard for the University of Chicago Law School. Thus, it’s especially disappointing to see that Professor Stone teaches several ConLaw courses that are presumably part of Chicago’s core curriculum. Law school courses depend on the professor’s subject knowledge and ability to teach. I may have to change my opinion of UChicago Law.
DRJ (50237c) — 4/20/2007 @ 8:40 pmBe fair, Patterico: The post isn’t an embarrassment to Chicago; it’s an embarrassment to Geoff Stone. Chicago just has to be embarassed that it granted him tenure.
Don’t worry, DRJ. Everyone at Chicago knows where Stone is coming from and can discount with the appropriate levels of salt.
Leif (037db9) — 4/20/2007 @ 8:48 pmI’d be more interested in your reaction to the posters at Balkin’s site.
AF (2455cd) — 4/20/2007 @ 9:00 pmOur esteemed host is in error, not because his criticism is invalid, but because he has forgotten (not really, I suspect) Professor Stone’s intended audience.
Trouble is, Professor Stone was not writing an exam paper, and his intended audience wasn’t a bunch of other lawyers who would do anything radical like actually read the Court’s decision.
Rather, his untended audience were the people who would be swayed by the fact that he is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and therefore an Authority. (I say this despite the fact it was the UC “Faculty Blog.”
Professor Stone made an interesting typo that actually says a lot more than he intended:
Emphasis mine.
Yup, that’s right: many law schools do teach what he wrote! 🙂
Dana (3e4784) — 4/21/2007 @ 4:36 amPerhaps our host’s readers will recall when some of our honorable Democratic senators seemed so opposed to Catholic nominees for judicial posts that it became noticeable, and there were real accusations of an anti-Catholic bias.
It looks like Professor Stone wants to feed into that fire:
Nawww, no anti-Catholic movement there!
Dana (3e4784) — 4/21/2007 @ 4:50 amProf Stone is a long-time contributor to the Chicago Tribune. He is merely a knee-jerk, leftist politcal hack. Any analysis from him is based, in my opinion, on making a determination as to which leftist template he wishes to pursue, and then finding some legal basis on which to support his opinion.
He is merely an advocate, not a legal mind. He may or may not be an adequate professor; he is certainly not a brilliant constitutional scholar.
Dale (b48357) — 4/21/2007 @ 4:58 amAll that needs to be said is that this hack once worked for an even bigger hack: Justice Brennan.
gahrie (de5a83) — 4/21/2007 @ 5:27 amJack Balkin
AF (2455cd) — 4/21/2007 @ 5:54 amGiven that there’s a fair amount of (perhaps legitimate) griping from conservatives that liberal-leaning colleges and grad schools don’t hire conservative-leaning professors, shouldn’t we applaud conservative-leaning Chicago Law for their giving a liberal such as Stone a place to hang his hat?
stevesturm (d3e296) — 4/21/2007 @ 5:58 amHerr professor must be angling to be Hillary’s first Supreme Court nominee.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 4/21/2007 @ 6:15 amAF–
The fact that Justice Kennedy is in favor of meaningful state regulation of abortion is not news. He would have upheld the previous (state) bans on PBA, and had written Casey to allow such.
Kennedy felt that the Court (and especially O’Connor) turned its back on the Casey compromise when it struck down the state PBA bans in 2000. His dissent to that was a 9 on the Scalia scale.
If I was a state legislator and I wanted to, say, ban abortions in the last trimester (unless there is a clear and present danger to the mother’s life), I’d do it now, expecting 5 votes.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/21/2007 @ 10:13 amNo Catholics need apply…
By claiming, as Professor Stone does, that opposition to abortion from people who happen to be Catholic is the attempt by Catholics to impose their religion on everyone, the liberals are seizing the separation of church and state argument. You don’t…
Common Sense Political Thought (819604) — 4/21/2007 @ 12:53 pmAs with Justice Ginsburg, evidently Prof. Stone believes the outcome is more important than honest jurisprudence (in specific cases, of course).
bains (174b02) — 4/21/2007 @ 5:58 pmBains, surely you didn’t mean just Justice Ginsburg? You might wish to include Justices Breyer and Stevens in that group.
Dana (556f76) — 4/22/2007 @ 4:30 am[…] practitioners are largely regarded as "obnoxious and arrogant" in the classroom and "jaw-droppingly incompetent" out of it. Small wonder trust in government has hit a fifty-year low. Welcome to government […]
America's Death by Professor (48dc6e) — 5/20/2010 @ 12:19 am[…] are largely regarded as “obnoxious and arrogant” in the classroom and “jaw-droppingly incompetent” out of it. Small wonder trust in government has hit a fifty-year low. Welcome to government […]
Why you don’t want professors ruling you « Spin, strangeness, and charm (89782b) — 5/22/2010 @ 1:29 am