It's hard to choose the stupidest claim in this op-ed piece by the aforementioned Charles Krauthammer, given the stunning variety of them to pick from. But I think this one deserves special recognition, if only for its breathtaking idiocy:
But constitutional jurisprudence is different. It is, by definition, an exercise of intellect steeped in scholarship. Otherwise it is nothing but raw politics. And is it not the conservative complaint that liberals have abused the courts by having them exercise raw super-legislative power, the most egregious example of which is the court's most intellectually bankrupt ruling, Roe v. Wade ?
I'm sorry ... the court's most "intellectually bankrupt" ruling is Roe v. Wade? Apparently, poor Charles has forgotten all about 2000's Bush v. Gore. That pretty much defined "raw politics," didn't it?
3 comments:
Well, you certainly wouldn't want to pick one of those monuments of triviality such as the Dred Scott or the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision.
I was trying to maximize the chance that my readership recognized the case of which I spoke. :-)
And, in any event, it may be that Bush v. Gore really is the most blatantly political judgment to come out of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dred Scott might be an abominable decision, but I don't think it can be categorized as nakedly political and partisan.
Dred Scott is so old that we really can't comprehend the way society at that time thought about things, especially race and property.
While Bush v. Gore is recent and easily comprehended for what it was.
While I believe in the right to abortion, I can see how framing it as a privacy rights issue could seem a stretch to some people.
Post a Comment