From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Summary: Is it impossible not to discuss the legal merits of R v W?
Keywords: Roe, Wade
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:08:43 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Dec15.102347.28359@Princeton.EDU>
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1183@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec2.203836.27157@Princeton.EDU>
>>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>>BTW, Clarence Thomas discredited himself.  "I have never discussed Roe v. 
>>>Wade."
>
>>That's not exactly what he said, if I remember correctly.  I believe he
>>said (and meant) that he never discussed the legal merits of Roe v.
>>Wade.  I don't know why you find that hard to believe.  It is very
>>seldom that I hear anyone discuss the legal merits of Roe v. Wade,
>>rather most people take a position based on their opinion of abortion
>>and talk about that.  The propriety of abortion is (or should be)
>>irrelevant to the legal merits of the decision.  Not enough people
>>understand that.
>
>You don't find it hard to believe that a law school student and future
>judge has NEVER discussed the legal merits of Roe v. Wade?

No, I don't.

>He was in law school at the time the decision was announced; *I*
>certainly don't believe that it wasn't one of the biggest topics of
>conversation in law schools around the country at the time.

Have you been to law school?  I haven't.

>I quite agree that the legal merits of Roe v. Wade are separate from the
>idea of abortion; I could believe that he never dicussed *abortion* with
>anyone.  I *can't* believe he never discussed RvW, given that he was in
>law school at the time of the decision, with anyone.

I think you give lawyers in general and law students in particular, too
much credit.  I have heard prominent lawyers argue RvW on several
occasions and in every case, neither side were able to keep the
propriety of abortion out of what was supposed to be a discussion of the
law (in fact, the law barely intruded into these discussions).  If
practicing lawyers find it difficult to concentrate on the law (when
that is the task given to them), then I don't know why it would be any
easier for law students (or judges for that matter).

I'm told (and believe) that studying to be a lawyer is difficult, and
therefore I would imagine that law students spend most of their time
studying, not discussing current events (even in the law).  Moreover, my
experience at college suggests that, in what little free time students do
have, many of them like to spend it on something other than their
primary field of study.

The subject may, in fact probably, came up in class, but it is hardly
uncommon for all the students who want to speak on a subject, not to get a
chance to, and most students prefer to keep to themselves and only take
part in discussions through prodding from the instructor.  Baring evidence
to the contrary, it isn't hard to believe that Thomas never spoke on the
subject of RvW in class.

Abortion and RvW are not the most important subjects in the world to
everyone (in fact, most people), and many people are not disposed to
debate the subject with others.*  People who are and do find the subject
very important, I think often lose sight of this fact.

* And there are a number of good reasons not to want to discuss this with
others, besides just interest in the subject, not the least of which is
the possible emotional response of others if you take the "wrong" side
of the issue.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner