You betray your shallowness all too clearly, William. Instead of providing a counter-argument of your own, i.e. demonstrating how the Court’s jurisprudence is reconcilable with the Constitution and how its ruling in Carhart II is not, you simply claim I am "parroting neo-con talking points." That is unavoidably an intellectually substanceless hit-and-run.
But you do not even do that right. In fact you have made it further evident that labeling someone "neo-con" is a description no longer with any meaning. Neo-conservatives are a faction subscribing to a particular approach towards foreign policy. What a school of thought of that nature has to do with a Constitutional discussion you fail to explain, or even try to explain.
As Jonah Goldberg* has pointed out, George Orwell once wrote that "the word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signals ‘something not desirable.’" As your comment demonstrates, the same can now be said of neo-conservatism. My piece on the Carhart decision was not vaguely related to neo-conservatism or areas where neo-conservatism would be relevant. It has become just a pejorative label to be slapped on anyone or anything distasteful to liberals.
Or maybe you simply mistakenly mixed up the stereotypical label those on the left like to apply to conservatives and their arguments. Did you mean to call me a parrot of the religious right instead?
*Goldberg, Jonah (2007, April 2). Kill This Word. National Review, LIX(5), 18-22.
No comments:
Post a Comment