Here is a quote from a Peoria Journal Star editorial headline on September 12, 2005: "Compounding an awful precedent." Here is a quote of the first sentence of that editorial: "John Morris surely knows that two wrongs don't make a right." I'm not going to deal with the rest of the editorial. I didn't read past the first paragraph. What is important is that the editorial staff recognizes that some precedent can be awful--from the headline--and the editorial board recognizes that "two wrongs don't make a right." And someone said that the editorial writers of the Journal Star and I can't agree on anything--we can, I just don't think they'll like how I use those two quotes.

In the paper the same day was a short article dealing with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter who supports the murder of unborn babies even though he is a Republican. You may recall that when he was in line for the chairmanship some conservative groups were opposed to him receiving it. They feared he would use the position to try to prevent judges and Justices opposed to the murder of unborn babies from being approved by the committee. He did receive the chairmanship perhaps by agreeing not to use his authority to obstruct such nominations. (I don't know, that's just an educated guess.)

Two quotes from that article include: "he (Senator Specter) will not ask Supreme Court chief justice nominee John Roberts whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that legalized abortion." The second quote is "'I (Senator Specter) think it is inappropriate to ask him head-on if he's going to overturn Roe, but I believe that there are many issues close to the issue, like his respect for precedent,' Specter told NBC's 'Meet the Press.'"

As the headline from the editorial declares not all precedent is worthy of being followed. Some precedent can be and is awful. Some precedent can be and is a plain violation of the Constitution. The decision in Roe v. Wade clearly ignores the provisions of the Constitution. You can and should respect precedent that is valid. Reversing precedent that is inherently wrong and destructive is also showing respect for precedent. After all, the precedent before Roe v. Wade for the vast majority of our history was not to allow the murder of unborn babies. Horrendous precedent should not be followed just because it is precedent no more than an unconstitutional law should be allowed to stand just because it is a law passed by Congress. (I am intentionally avoiding the controversy of whether or not the Courts even have the right to declare laws unconstitutional.) Laws can be unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution according to our Supreme Court. A precedent that violates the Constitution should not be allowed to stand just because it has become a precedent.

The next day on September 13, 2005 the editorial board wrote another editorial ranting and raving about the abortion pill. They were complaining that the federal government had not yet made a decision to allow the abortion pill to be sold over the counter. They continued to use the same incorrect arguments that they had previously used. They concluded by calling upon the state of Illinois to allow the abortion pill to be sold over the counter.

I would remind the editorial board of their statement in the previous day's editorial--"two wrongs don't make a right." Allowing the murder of unborn babies by a medical abortion is wrong. Allowing the murder of an unborn baby by an abortion pill is wrong. Selling an abortion pill over the counter so that underage teenagers (or younger) can get it either directly or indirectly is wrong. I guess in this case three wrongs don't make a right. Does the editorial board get this? No!