A reader writes:
"I had never seen or heard the Sandra Day O’Connor quote you gave yesterday. The quote with the line about "defining the mysteries of life" for one’s self. Oh man, what a rich load of blather that is. I come from a background of "hard" science (I’m a Electrical Engineer), the same sort of science that deals with a little thing we call the real world, a place where there are such things as facts, and where there exists obvious right (as in "correct") and wrong (as in "incorrect).
It doesn’t take a overactive imagination to guess what legal topic caused O’conner to was so poetic; hmmm, abortion maybe? Ask a biologist if we get to define our own "mysteries" of life … and everyone’s own meanings be correct. Sandra simply conjurs out of thin air such metaphysical ideas as "personhood" for determining whether to bestow any rights – in fact the ultimate right, that of life – upon a living human being, and then turns phrases about the mystery of it all. Gag me. Sandra isn’t fit to carry Scalia’s lunch tray…"
Well, tell us how you really feel. One small point: the quote may be Kennedy’s, it turns out, although O’Connor joined the opinion with Souter. It’s confusing from the PDF I read who actually wrote those sentences. (Anyone settle it for sure?) One larger point: I agree that it’s a stretch to go from that definition of human freedom to constitutional protection for all abortions. But the statement of where liberty is most important – in the freedom to decide for yourself what you believe about what cannot be known – seems to me to be an excellent standard. The electrical engineer has no special expertise over these matters, except as a human being and citizen. And neither does anyone else. Hence our radical equality under the constitution; and the fundamental freedom it guarantees. To believe or not to believe: that is a question the American government should be entirely neutral about.
The Dish 