Update on Gonzales vs Carhart

Another commentary by Marty Lederman on Gonzales vs Carhart that points up just how purely political (and regressively so) the Court's decision is. The first commenter to this post objects strenuously to some of Lederman's contentions, but I have the same problem with his rebuttal that I do with the Court's opinion -- it's all couched in generalities, and not convincing ones: "some women suffer depression," "not all are properly informed," and so forth. I'm enough of a stickler that I want some hard figures on this -- which probably don't exist, unfortunately. (As another commenter observes, this is roughly analogous to the reliance on "some people say" arguments in the press and in presidential news conferences.)

I also have to ask if this is really a solid basis for a ruling in law.

The more I study the Court's opinion in this case, the more flawed it seems. It's about as thin as the decision in Bowers on sodomy, and seems to come from the same basis -- the Court's deciding on the basis of sectarian versions of "morality" and not on the basis of law.