From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Catholics
Need Not Apply
No one seriously argues anymore that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.
Rather, pro-Roe advocates rest their case on policy grounds (warnings
about coat alleys and back hangers, etc.) or, when they must argue the law,
on the power of precedent. Of the five Supreme Court justices who more or less
upheld Roe in the 1992 case of Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, three went out of their way to avoid endorsing
the decision, emphasizing instead the allegedly high cost of the court's admitting
a mistake:
A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy, and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law. It is therefore imperative to adhere to the essence of Roe's original decision, and we do so today.
A jaw-dropping op-ed piece in today's Boston Globe suggests that these three justices got it exactly wrong. One Christopher D. Morris, "a writer and critic in Northfield, Vt.," argues that the Senate Judiciary Committee should subject the Catholic Church, and Catholic jurists, to special scrutiny:
Catholic bishops threatened to exclude Senator John Kerry from the Eucharist because of his support for Roe v. Wade. The Senate Judiciary Committee is now fully justified in asking these bishops whether the same threats would apply to Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts, if he were to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.
The bishops have made this question legitimate because Americans no longer know whether a Catholic judge can hear abortion cases without an automatic conflict of interest. . . .
Asking the bishops to testify would be healthy. If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians who support Roe v. Wade would gain renewed confidence in their advocacy. If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.
In other words, in order to preserve the bogus constitutional right to abortion, it is necessary to disregard the actual constitutional provisions for church-state separation and against religious tests for officeholders. It's yet another reason why Roe must go.
When
Cuomo Made Sense
Yesterday we
noted that the Roberts nomination had Mario Cuomo, on "Meet
the Press" Sunday, talking like a Know Nothing, demanding to know if
John Roberts would do what "the pope says." During the same show,
Cuomo's interlocutor, constitutional scholar Douglas Kmiec, praised a speech
Cuomo gave in 1984 at Notre Dame in which the then-governor of New York discussed
the role of religion in politics. "It was eloquent," Kmiec said. "It
was a wonderful presentation."
We thought Kmiec was just being polite, but when we found the speech online, we actually found a lot to agree with. Here's the 1984 Cuomo:
The same amendment of the Constitution that forbids the establishment of a State Church affirms my legal right to argue that my religious belief would serve well as an article of our universal public morality. I may use the prescribed processes of government--the legislative and executive and judicial processes--to convince my fellow citizens--Jews and Protestants and Buddhists and non-believers--that what I propose is as beneficial for them as I believe it is for me; that it is not just parochial or narrowly sectarian but fulfills a human desire for order, peace, justice, kindness, love, any of the values most of us agree are desirable even apart from their specific religious base or context. . . .
I can, if I wish, argue that the State should not fund the use of contraceptive devices not because the Pope demands it but because I think that the whole community--for the good of the whole community--should not sever sex from an openness to the creation of life.
And surely, I can, if so inclined, demand some kind of law against abortion not because my Bishops say it is wrong but because I think that the whole community, regardless of its religious beliefs, should agree on the importance of protecting life--including life in the womb, which is at the very least potentially human and should not be extinguished casually.
No law prevents us from advocating any of these things: I am free to do so.
So are the Bishops. And so is Reverend [Jerry] Falwell [a 1980s "religious right" figure].
This sounds a lot like our Wall Street Journal article from May, "Why I'm Rooting for the Religious Right." Actually, we'd add that Cuomo or anyone else is perfectly free to advocate the policies he cites on strictly sectarian grounds as well. Making the case this way is foolish, though, since America is a highly pluralistic society, and "because the pope says so" will be sufficient to persuade only some Catholics and virtually no non-Catholics.
In any case, Cuomo's position then seems at odds with the prevailing liberal position today, which is that religiously informed arguments are essentially illegitimate, at least when they lead to conservative conclusions.
A
Real Race?
Sen. Hillary Clinton will face a "battle royal" to keep her Senate
seat if Jeanine Pirro wins the nomination, says Dick Morris, the Clinton adviser
turned New York Post columnist:
This is just the kind of fight that Sen. Clinton would have hoped to avoid. . . .
Jeanine Pirro is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay-civil unions and pro-immigration. And, of course, she's a woman. . . .
Hillary would love to cloak her Senate re-election as a necessity in the face of a determined GOP effort to overturn Roe vs. Wade and to roll back the clock on gun controls. But against Pirro, she will be disarmed of all her best issues. She will have to run on her own record, which is limited at best.
Morris goes so far as to predict that "if Pirro posts some early gains," Mrs. Clinton "may pull out of the race."
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, we saw Pirro on Fox News Channel this morning, where--we're not making this up--she criticized Sen. Clinton for not being part of the judicial filibuster compromise. This column has argued in favor of that compromise, but we are not running for office. Does anyone really think that in liberal New York Hillary will pay a price for intransigence over Bush judges?
Why is Pirro running if she has no realistic shot at victory--especially when she could have run for state attorney general or even governor and had a much better chance? Reader Ronald Stack makes a pretty convincing case:
This is really a brilliant move by Pirro's people. Albert is major baggage and probably is why Pirro didn't run for attorney general--a race she should otherwise win against almost anyone. Running against Mrs. Clinton in a race she is not expected to win will give her experience in running a statewide campaign, raise her statewide and national profile and help her raise money for future campaigns.
Most importantly, however, the campaign against Clinton will get all the Albert stuff out in the open when it can't really hurt her. Dealing with the Albert factor in this campaign should inoculate her for subsequent races.
"Albert," of course, is Pirro's husband, who has served prison time for tax evasion. Clinton's husband, of course, has also had some legal problems, but as Newsday points out, "Bill Clinton never went to prison for twisting the truth, as Pirro's did for cheating on his taxes." Or, as the New York Sun puts it, "Mrs. Clinton's husband was impeached while president and has a well-publicized history of philandering, but he has never served time in a federal prison."
Suggested campaign slogan for Mrs. Clinton: "Vote for me, my husband eluded prison!"
Great Orators of the Democratic Party
- "One man with courage makes a majority."--Andrew
Jackson
- "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin
Roosevelt
- "The buck stops here."--Harry
Truman
- "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your
country."--John
Kennedy
- "What the propagandists on the right have done is make people afraid to say they are Democrats. We have to be out there. We have to be vocal. We have to be pushing our version of the facts because their version of the facts is very unfactual."--Howard Dean
His
Severance Package Is a Coin Purse
We got a chuckle out of this New York Times piece on Benon Sevan, implicated
in the U.N. Oil for Food scandal:
"As I predicted," he wrote, "a high-profile investigative body invested with absolute power would feel compelled to target someone, and that someone has turned out to be me. The charges are false, and you, who have known me all these years, should know that they are false."
Mr. Sevan, who is believed to be in Cyprus, announced on Sunday that he was resigning from his $1-a-year advisory position at the United Nations, a post meant specifically to ensure his availability for the Volcker inquiry.
If this guy's so brilliant that he can predict the future, you'd think he'd be able to find a job paying more than the low single digits.
Cheap
Sex?
"Study: Using Sexuality at Work Hurts Women's Careers," according
to an Associated Press headline. But does the study really show that? It's hard
to tell from the AP's report:
A new study says sexy ensembles, skillful shoulder rubs and flirty e-mails are some of the tools of seduction that women may employ, but that behavior falls flat in the business world.
Of the 164 female business school graduates who responded to a questionnaire from Tulane University researchers, those who acknowledged sexy behavior at work received lower pay and fewer promotions.
About half the women were in the "never" category. They generally brought home $75,000 to $100,000. The other half fell into the next lowest bracket of $50,000 to $75,000.
The AP apparently doesn't think to ask the obvious question: Are these results adjusted for age? After all, older workers tend to make more money than younger ones, and younger women seem likely to be more prone to workplace flirtation.
What
Would We Do Without Canadian Anchor Counterparts?
"ABC News' Peter Jennings Was a Class Act, Canadian Anchor Counterparts
Say"--headline, Canadian Press, Aug. 8
We'll
Bet Bullets Had Something to Do With It
"Spears 'Had Nothing to Do With' Paparazzi Shooting"--headline, Reuters,
Aug. 8
Hot Spot
Our item
yesterday on metric temperatures brought this response from reader Kip Gary:
I am currently in Qatar and the temperature is 102. I took 102 and subtracted 32 from it, then multiplied the result by 5/9, but it was still hot. How can this be?
Kip, the metric system was invented by the European Union in order to lull Continental dwellers into complacency about the lack of air conditioning caused by socialist economic policies. Air conditioning? But it's only 30 degrees out! As you correctly note, it's "still hot"--hot enough one recent summer to kill thousands of elderly Frenchmen, or, as they say in metric, kilofrenchmen.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Thomas Dillon, Marcus Hawkinson, Corodon Fuller, Charlie Gaylord, Drew Anderson, Scott Hill, Greg de Mocskonyi, Chris Stetsko, Dan O'Shea, Jeff Meling, C.E. Dobkin, Patrick Bedwell and Rod Pennington. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: Paul Volcker's latest report details the graft over which Kofi Annan presided.
- Brendan Miniter: Jeb Bush for president? Don't write him off just yet.
- Arthur Chrenkoff: A roundup of the past month's good news from Afghanistan.
- Michael Philips: The judge who apologized for the Salem witch trials.
