Silly or sad

The Washington Times Weekly - - Culture, Etc. -

“Al­most 50 years ago, a young pres­i­den­tial can­di­date named John F. Kennedy de­clared, ‘I do not speak for my church on pub­lic mat­ters, and the church does not speak for me.’ Amer­i­cans put aside wor­ries about his Catholic faith and elected him to our na­tion’s high­est of­fice.

“But for many lib­er­als to­day, what’s good enough for a Kennedy in the White House isn’t good enough for a Kennedy on the Supreme Court. [. . .] Jus­tice An­thony Kennedy au­thored the 5-4 ma­jor­ity opin­ion in Gon­za­les v. Carhart up­hold­ing the 2003 Par­tial Birth Abor­tion Ban Act. [. . .]

“Lib­eral crit­ics just can’t be­lieve that a ma­jor­ity of Amer­i­cans find this pro­ce­dure im­moral. [. . .]

“In­stead, pro-choice lib­er­als re­sort to the claim that the de­ci­sion in Carhart must come not from rea­son, but from the jus­tices’ per­sonal re­li­gious be­liefs.

“The five jus­tices in the Carhart ma­jor­ity — Kennedy, Chief Jus­tice John Roberts, and Jus­tices An­tonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Al­ito — are Catholic. But as a cri­tique of the Supreme Court’s work, the claim is plain silly, if not sad.”

John Yoo, writ­ing on “Par­tial Birth Big­otry,” in the April 28-29 edi­tion of the Wall Street Jour­nal

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.