Justice for Gays
6th July 2008
Well, it isn’t really “justice for gays”, but rather “justice for children who happen to be in a position where they’re used as political footballs”. But one can’t expect the Washington Post to appreciate such rational distinctions.
How could the OLC, which gained notoriety for putting ideology before the rule of law to justify extreme interrogation techniques, come to such a conclusion? By reading the law governing Social Security benefits neutrally and correctly — and by keeping politics out of the analysis.
Note the tententious perspective: When they reach the conclusion we like, they’re “neutral and correct” — but when they reach a conclusion we don’t like, they’re “putting ideology before the rule of law”.
Here’s a thought that will cause the nearest leftoid brain to implode: Perhaps, just perhaps, they were applying the same standard in both cases — what the law requires. But that wouldn’t ever occur to whoever writes editorials for the Washington Post.