National Review Online's foremost legal analyst is continuing his colleagues' attacks on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by criticizing her for "speaking publicly on abortion policy," despite previously defending Justice Antonin Scalia's penchant for similar public comments and interviews.
Whelan's condemnation of Ginsburg and her discussion of general "abortion policy" appears inconsistent with his defense of his former boss, Justice Antonin Scalia, who also frequently speaks on contentious public policy. For example, in 2011, when Scalia spoke at a "closed-door session with a group of conservative lawmakers," Whelan balked at the suggestion that Scalia's attendance at a Tea Party function was inappropriate
And Whelan registered no objections to Scalia's "long and interesting" interview with New York magazine in 2013, where Scalia discussed his judicial philosophy and how he would decide a constitutional challenge to a hypothetical "flogging" statute, among other ruminations. When asked about his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas where he wrote that Americans had a right to "protect themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive," Scalia said, "I would write that again. ... Maybe the world is spinning toward a wider acceptance of homosexual rights, and here's Scalia, standing athwart it. At least standing athwart it as a constitutional entitlement." Scalia also addressed his opinion on equal protection and marriage equality, both public policy topics of past and current interest to the Supreme Court.