[Phaedrus]

ping . . . think you'll like this. Johnson has a world-class mind and he makes Sham Science Darwinism as obvious as a bad haircut.

[Phaedrus]

I spent a whole year on that, reading these dense 120-page law review articles, studying continental philosophy, and so on, and developed a love-hate relationship with neo-Marxism. I disliked the infantile leftist politics intensely. I did agree with their critique of liberal rationalism and legal scholarship?where the law professor and the judge say, "Well, you there, you have your passions and your prejudices and your interests, whereas I just peer into the Constitution and decide what justice is." It's what I called the sham neutrality of liberal rationalism.

One of the leading examples of that was in the section on religion. In my article, my study guide of sham neutrality, I used as my textbook example the decision of the California Supreme Court on the government funding of abortions. The US Supreme Court said, "You have the right to get an abortion, but it's not unconstitutional for Congress to refuse to fund abortions as part of medical care." However, the California Supreme Court decided the issue the other way around; they said, "You do have to fund it." The justification for that conclusion began, "Now, we're not saying anything about the morality of abortion, we simply don't take any stance on that. All we're saying is that abortion has to be treated like other forms of child-birth decisions." So I said, "Well, why don't you say, "We're not saying anything about the morality of abortion, we just feel it has to be treated as the equivalent of other forms of homicide." The classification was a moral statement, so it was a sham neutrality.

Welcome to the workings of a World Class Mind!