Abortion politics had little to do with posting the article. It was about Kennedy's hypocrisy which is a consisistent theme of his.
I recognize that you don't like Kennedy, but what did he say about Bork's theories of constitutional interpretation that you disagree with?
If you get rid of Roe v. Wade, abortion will become illegal again in at least some states. And women do get illegal abortions when abortion is illegal, and these illegal abortions are called "back alley abortions." "Back alley" may be hyperbole, but it's a fact that women die from illegal abortions due to infection and perforated uteri and so forth. Kennedy didn't make that up.
Some of the civil rights cases are based on an expansive intepretation of the Commerce Clause, including one of the earliest cases desegregating lunch counters, for one Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 (1960).
If there were nine Judge Borks on the bench, then women would still be dying from back alley abortions and blacks would not be able to eat at lunch counters in some states, because the owners had the right to serve whomever they pleased, and serving Negroes didn't please them.
In fact, Boynton was convicted of a misdemeanor for violating segregation laws, they weren't just civil in nature, they were criminal laws. Kennedy didn't make that up, either.
I don't think Kennedy was arguing that Bork wants women to die from back alley abortions or blacks to be segregated, only that these stories were what the justices were looking at when they ruled the way they did, and Bork thinks the rulings were contrary to law, and would reverse them. |
