One of the many frustrating aspects of French's argument is that even as he spends paragraphs discussing last term's case striking down a Louisiana statute regulating abortions, he suggests that overturning Roe is the only way SCOTUS could affect abortion law. 1/
That permits him to say that because only because 1 justice is on the record vs Roe, there’s no hope in overturning it. But as he says, the case under discussion *wasn't about overturning Roe* and came down to a bad opinion from Roberts (who reversed himself from ~2 yrs ago). 2/
In short, it's not all about Roe; other cases would impose modest restrictions on abortion, & it doesn’t take 4 new justices to make a difference on those. (And that’s just the Supreme Court—French doesn’t even mention the president’s power to appoint lower-court judges.) 3/
It's not useful to say that someone has blood on his hands for voting for one candidate or another. But I think French was closer to the truth when he understood that having “the most pro-abortion president in American history” made a difference. END
nationalreview.com/corner/obamas-…
* Correction: this should say "would *permit* modest restrictions..."
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.