How many gaffes and factual errors will be heard in tomorrow night’s third presidential
\ndebate? It’s anyone’s guess. But our hothead Ignoramus in Chief is sure to make the most of his
\nchance to display more of them. <\/P>
\n
Which reminds me: Steven Lubet, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University, The professor laments<\/FONT><\/B><\/A> the He’s correct, of course. It is<\/I> no small matter. But Lubet apparently doesn’t realize that Here’s Timothy Noah’s clarifying follow-up<\/FONT><\/B><\/A> in Slate on Postscript:<\/STRONG> A reader writes:<\/P> <\/P> The reference is to Article IV, Section 2,
\npicked up on the ninny’s remark in the second debate about the
\nSupreme Court, but completely missed the intention behind it.<\/P>
\n
\nninny’s “woeful ignorance of American history” and points out that his understanding is
\nupside down and backwards. “This is no small matter,” Lubet writes. “The president
\nmust defend and uphold the United States Constitution, so it seems pretty reasonable to expect
\nhim to know something about it, not to mention the causes of the Civil War.” <\/P>
\n
\nthis time the ninny’s remark was code masquerading as ignorance, a signal to his anti-abortion
\nbase. Lubet must have missed
\nKicking Ass, Daily Dispatches From the DNC:<\/P>
\nSome of you might be wondering why [Bush] brought up Dred Scott (he
\nwouldn’t appoint a justice who agreed with the Dred Scott decision). This was code. To break the
\ncode, Google for “Dred Scott Roe Wade”. Pro-life activists regularly call the Roe v. Wade
\ndecision “Dred Scott II.” So what Bush was doing was to communicate to his followers that he
\nwould appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, in a tricky way that would cause the rest of
\nus, who don’t follow pro-life rhetoric, to miss it.<\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\nMonday. It neatly explains the ninny’s “borderline-incoherent ramble.” I suspect the good
\nprofessor isn’t as Web savvy as he might be. Ditto for the Trib’s op-ed editors.<\/P>
\n
\n
\nYou may have gotten Bush off the hook. Many, probably especially
\nLubet (who is very conservative), know the code. What hardly anyone recalls (or ever
\nknew) is Article 4. The Dred Scott decision was strictly correct. It is not a
\nmisinterpretation of the constitution. The code backfired. It is emblematic of the
\nignorance of its users, especially its creators.<\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\n
\n