IS THE OPPOSITE OF EXTREME NECESSARILY EXTREME?

Judging Michael McConnell (NY Times, September 29, 2002)

The Bush administration has ceded its Justice Department to the extreme conservative wing of the Republican Party and has made ideology the primary
consideration in picking judges. Its goal is simple: to turn the federal courts into a force for a reactionary shift in society. [...]

The Senate must...be highly skeptical of nominees who do not acknowledge a woman's right to abortion. Mr. McConnell has not merely expressed abstract reservations about the Roe v. Wade ruling, but has also actively crusaded against it. He signed a statement arguing that fetuses deserved constitutional protection. Mr. McConnell has promised to follow established precedents in the area, and that is worth something. But that will not help in the many cases appellate courts decide in which there is no binding authority and a judge must seek his own counsel.

The Times would be on a little bit safer ground in suggesting that conservatives like John Ashcroft and Michael McConnell are extremist on abortion because they don't consider it a "right" if the American public did not broadly agree with their position. In fact, the Times itself seems to represent the extremist position on the issue, the idea that a fetus has no rights whatsoever. They might do well to note that a considerabl;e majority of Americans consider abortion to be murder and even larger majorities support limitations on the "right" to abortion. The conservative positions that the Times decries as reactionary are extreme only in the sense that, as Flannery O'Connor said: "You have to push as hard as the age that pushes against you." Posted by Orrin Judd at September 29, 2002 6:23 AM