The author--"A Watcher"--quotes himself from a post he wrote entitled "Roe Will Be Law Forever: Suck It Up". The author should have quit after he wrote the incisive title. Instead, he goes on to throw conservative cliches at Roe, hoping that some will stick.
Consider:
Roe v Wade came about because of the actions of a few secular judges who were raised up in their professional life in an environment where the Constitution was not seen as democracy's shield. It had become and remains liberalism's sword. Liberals believe that the ends justify the means.Roe, by the way, was decided 7-2 by 3 Eisenhower appointees, 2 Nixon appointees, 1 JFK appointee, and 1 FDR appointee.
The author proceeds to use some variant of the word "(un)ethical" some fourteen times--without defining or clarifying any moral framework by which one's ethics may be determined.
They were unethical lawyers for years before they became unethical judges.The author of course repeats such assertions as if they require no proof. The logic functions as if 'merely concurring with Roe proves an absence of ethics which means that they were unethical before they became judges.'
This logical mess pervades the post and leads to such gems as the author urging that bad judges be removed, or ideally, that unethical persons be barred from becoming (bad) judges. Finally, the author outlines a standard which seems to confuse his point even more:
Lawyers [should be] required to follow the law before they become judgesRoe v Wade, incidentally, is the law.
UPDATE: In an earlier version of this post I stated that the UvS blog does not allow comments. This was and is incorrect--comments are allowed. My apologies.
