Lying to win
Those terrified that the Bush SCOTUS nominee will put an end to abortion rights enumerated in our constitution (have they not been paying attention? – Ed.) are already lying.
I realize that abortion is an important issue to people (not to me, sure it’s bad but making it illegal would be worse). But it is not the issue. As with most things, people have to cheat to win. So be it. Imagine how much worse it will be when we know who the nominee is. Rob Huddleston, who apparently has not seen it fit to address my response to his assertion of my ultra-libertarianism, has a good round up of nominees.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
WTF? How is Smeal lying here? She said in 2004 that the fate of Roe was hanging by two votes at best (emphasis mine), and I read that to mean an implied “one vote at worst.” O’Connor retiring would indeed be losing the fifth and deciding vote if Smeal’s worst-case is true. The best case relies on Kennedy not to do an about-face, something I’m not so sure I’d trust.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
From the link: Sandra Day O’Connor was the 5th vote that was saving Roe v. Wade.
That is a misleading statement at best and an outright lie at worst.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Misleading statement I’ll buy. If that’s an outright lie, however, then GWB does it all the time.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
I should also point out that while this is no doubt exaggerated rhetoric, so what? It’s not as if pro-abortion activists have a monopoly on this, or even liberal activists in general. The vast majority (if not all) of what the SBVT assholes put forth was demonstrable bullshit, and you don’t call them liars. Why the double-standard?
(For that matter, I wouldn’t be surprised if pro-gun groups such as the NRA are equally guilty of such exaggerated rhetoric, even if the Supreme Court isn’t necessarily the subject.)
July 7th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
I think the use of the words ‘was’ and ‘saving’ pretty much denote an intentional lie. I have called out gunnies for lying or misleading before (you can search for Lott, if you like). Regarding the SBVs, I specifically said I didn’t believe all their claims but one stuck.
So, when I call someone a liar, I need to reference everyone ever who has lied? That’d be a long list, I doubt I have the server space for it. See rule 21
July 7th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
SayUncle –
Uggh… It’s not that I haven’t seen fit to respond. I also haven’t responded to HalfBakered and probably a dozen other blog-related matters. Gimme some time and I will see if I can post something soon. Heck, there are things that I am getting paid for that I haven’t seen fit to do lately. 🙂
Cheers,
Rob
July 7th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Patterico and I have had a rather extensive debate over whether Smeal’s statement should be considered a lie, or Michael Moore-esque deceit. It’s either one or the other, there is no third option.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
There is speculation that up to 3 other vacancies could happen during Bush’s term. Rehnquist is rumoured to be resigning tomorrow and most likely sometime soon.
This does mean that every nominee is critical simply because even if the court doesn’t shift on O’Conners nominee, its one step closer to shifting when another justice resigns.
July 8th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Xrlq, the third option is she’s a dumbass.
July 8th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Uncle: as Patterico noted, she foreclosed that option by previously admitting out loud that we were two votes away.
Manish: Rehnquist will probably retire, sure, but that doesn’t affect the overall calculus, except in Roe’s favor if Bush screws up and appoints a pro-abortion judge in his place.