Geoffrey Stone’s Silly Post Mentioned in Another “Post”
Geoffrey Stone’s recent controversial blog post, blaming the partial-birth abortion decision on the Catholicism of the majority justices, has been mentioned in the Washington Post:
“What then explains this decision?” he wrote. “Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out.”
In finding that there was a moral reason for upholding the ban, Stone added, the majority failed “to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality.”
Stone was immediately hooted down, blogospherically, for faulty logic, “religious bigotry” and failing to note anything from the majority opinion that would indicate the justices relied on religious belief, rather than their interpretation of the law, to uphold the ban passed by Congress in 2002. That ban, they noted, was approved by substantial and bipartisan majorities, made up of Catholics and non-Catholics.
I’m proud to have been among the crowd hooting down Stone.
John Yoo takes the hooting to the Wall Street Journal here.
Patterico,
Got anything new to say about the Kathryn Johnston incident?
Grotius (542623) — 4/30/2007 @ 6:29 amAnd i suppose he has a AVE THE RAINFORESTS bumper sticker on his car
krazy kagu (e7029d) — 4/30/2007 @ 6:31 amNo, why? Should I?
Patterico (618456) — 4/30/2007 @ 6:32 amBeyond what I’ve already said, that is. With which I’m guessing you’re not familiar.
Patterico (8b5207) — 4/30/2007 @ 6:34 amPatterico,
Then how about a link?
Grotius (542623) — 4/30/2007 @ 6:36 amYou break your scrolling finger?
Patterico (58e6e1) — 4/30/2007 @ 6:43 amI sincerely doubt there is any news that should cause me to have anything new to say about the case.
Patterico (58e6e1) — 4/30/2007 @ 6:44 amGot anything new to say about whether I got anything new to say about the Kathryn Johnston case?
Patterico (bad8f2) — 4/30/2007 @ 7:05 amPatterico,
No.
Grotius (542623) — 4/30/2007 @ 7:13 amDidn’t think so.
Sometimes it’s better to read first and taunt later.
Patterico (5d2845) — 4/30/2007 @ 7:22 amIt’s like Hooting and the Blogfish!
[runs away fast…]
See Dubya (937b12) — 4/30/2007 @ 2:10 pmFrom John Yoo in the Wall Street Journal link:
I can’t imagine a more damning criticism than this.
DRJ (3e5f88) — 4/30/2007 @ 2:20 pmNot only damning, but accurate too.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 4/30/2007 @ 4:07 pmNow imagine that five people of African and Hispanic heritage came to an agreement, and the four desenters were all white. (It wouldn’t have to be a court, it could be American Idol or some such foolishness.)
Hmm, . . . . the only way anyone would get away with pointing out the differing opinions by race, would be to frame the white people as being wrong.
But there is just no way that anyone in the mainstream would dare say, “They all voted that way just because of their skin color.” Even if everyone thought it.
Ray G (50194a) — 4/30/2007 @ 6:05 pmOr, in other words, the media via Stone’s post, are regliously profiling.
Ray G (50194a) — 4/30/2007 @ 6:06 pmHas any one broken down the religious bent on the Congress that voted in the law in the first place. Why so much focus on the court?
Alta Bob (2bfa0c) — 4/30/2007 @ 7:31 pm