6/29/00 3:45 p.m.
Bush's Disappointment
GWB fails to rise to the occasion.

By Ramesh Ponnuru, NR senior editor, & Ben Domenech, NRO

upreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia opens his furious dissent to yesterday's decision keeping partial-birth abortion legal by likening it to the Court's decisions in Dred Scott and Korematsu — the decisions upholding slavery as a constitutional right and authorizing the internment of Japanese-Americans. Compared to this eruption, George W. Bush's protest of the decision was a mere whimper.

Here's what he said: "I want to express to you how disappointed I am that the Supreme Court this morning by a narrow margin overturned the people of Nebraska's decision to ban partial-birth abortions. States should have the right to enact reasonable laws and restrictions, particularly concerning the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion. The American people can take steps to protect children who are in the process of being born, and they should have that right. I hope to be able to come up with a law that meets the constitutional scrutiny. And, unlike Al Gore, I pledge to fight for a ban on partial-birth abortion."

The Nebraska law was constitutional. It just didn't meet the "scrutiny" of five justices who were determined to nullify it — which is not the same thing. It is inconceivable that these justices would uphold a ban if it were merely worded differently, and they hardly even hold out the possibility. They want a health exception that would let abortionists decide when a partial-birth abortion was the safest way to kill a baby.

Bush's reaction could have been much worse. But he is misleading people about the real significance of what the Court has done, and indeed about the Court's role in the constitutional scheme of things. If Bush deserves sympathy for the politically difficult position in which the Court put him, it must also be said that he did not rise to the occasion.

Gore in the Balance
In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly pointed out Gore's past support for an increase in gasoline taxes. In Gore's 1992 tome Earth in the Balance, he called "higher taxes on fossil fuels . . . one of the logical first steps in changing our policies in a matter consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment." Gore recognized that the issue would be unpopular-but claimed that Americans should be willing to "give their leaders permission to challenge the nation to take bold, visionary, and even difficult steps to confront the environmental crisis."

It appears, though, that Gore isn't as excited as he used to be about taking such "bold, visionary" steps. In today's Houston Chronicle, Gore is quoted as saying that he is no longer in support of raising taxes on fossil fuels. "I am not proposing that. Nor have I at any point in this campaign," said Gore. "I have made it clear in this campaign that I am not calling for any tax increase on gasoline, on oil, on natural gas, or anything else."

This isn't just a flip-flop from 1992; it's a flip-flop from earlier this year, when Gore proudly claimed to stand by everything in his book. It is also untrue, unless Gore has also withdrawn his support for the Kyoto global-warming treaty, which would entail taxes and controls on energy consumption. Before you know it, Gore will be buying a fleet of new Suburbans.