Bench Memos

NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.

Et Tu, WSJ?


In the course of an otherwise intelligent discussion of the Supreme Court’s just-ended term, this house editorial in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal states:  “In outlawing a late-term abortion procedure and on racial preferences, [Justice Kennedy] sided with the four conservatives.”  (Emphasis added.)  Set aside the political labeling (which pervades the editorial).  How can the Wall Street Journal editorialists state that the Supreme Court majority “outlaw[ed] a late-term abortion procedure”?  Surely they must know that it was an Act of Congress, signed into law by the President, that generally “outlaw[ed]” partial-birth abortion and that the Supreme Court majority ruled merely that the law is facially constitutional?  Why does this elementary distinction so readily escape bright and educated minds?

Tags: Whelan


Subscribe to National Review