Scott Lemieux

Scott Lemieux is an assistant professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose. He contributes to the blogs Lawyers, Guns, and Money and Vox Pop.

Recent Articles

MORE TERRORISM ON AMERICAN SOIL.

MORE TERRORISM ON AMERICAN SOIL. A bomb was left at an abortion clinic in Austin. I'm guessing this will go down the same memory hole as the hundreds of packets of anthrax sent to abortion clinics after 9/11. After, as five reactionary lawyers on the Supreme Court have just informed us, you have to be crazy if you want to obtain an abortion anyway, so what's the big deal?

--Scott Lemieux

STRANGE JUSTICE.

STRANGE JUSTICE. I like Bill Richardson, and hope that he becomes a viable candidate in the primary. But his choice of "Whizzer White" as his ideal Supreme Court Justice in tonight's debate is...odd.

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT LAWS: A POPULAR BAD POLICY.

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT LAWS: A POPULAR BAD POLICY. Phoebe Maltz makes a good point about laws requiring that women under 18 get parental consent before obtaining an abortion. Why is it a good idea for state policy to increase the number of teenage mothers? This is particularly true of David Brooks, who thinks that pre-viability abortions should be legal.

LOW BRODERISM.

LOW BRODERISM. One could spend considerably more text than the column itself explaining the countless problems with David Broder's latest adventures in center-right false equivalence. First, you have the Dean's horror over Harry Reid's criticism of Alan Greenspan's political motives, just because the latter's positions on fiscal policy changed when it came time to justify Bush's upper class tax cuts, the horror! And then there's this:

A POX ON THE HOUSE OF FALSE EQUIVALENCES.

A POX ON THE HOUSE OF FALSE EQUIVALENCES. Karen Tumulty has an account of Carhart II that fits squarely within the extremely annoying pox-on-all-their-houses genre endemic to media coverage of the subject. First, she has to claim that both sides are being dishonest in the D&X debate. The anti-choice lobby is criticized because the distinction between methods at the same stage of gestation is completely arbitrary; in other words, their position is genuinely incoherent and unprincipled, and the issue is purely a ginned-up political tactic.

Pages