So What?

Meanwhile, law professor Orin Kerr suggests that it is far from clear that Congressman Foley has violated any laws, echoing the point that we've been trying to make.

In comments to one of our Foley posts, "Arlington" has exhaustively catalogued the Congressman's moral transgressions. That's all very well, and we could hardly agree more.

But those conclusions represent the application to these facts of a moral structure not shared by all. Indeed, a moral structure explicitly rejected by virtually every Democratic member of Congress. Moreover, an even broader range of folks would reject the notion that Christian theology -- let alone one version of Christian theology -- should be the basis for our criminal laws. That's a perfectly respectable political position, with much to recommend it.

That being said, however, we find ourselves having circled around only to arrive at our original jumping off point: What exactly does Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, claim Foley did that was wrong? They need to tell us what that might have been, and then they need to explain why they think that thing was wrong.

Let's conduct a little thought experiment:

Imagine that imaginary Congressman Goodman is approached by a 16-year-old female page. The Congressman has never laid eyes on the young woman before. He has in fact never had any contact with any Congressional page, male or female. She has come to the Congressman because he was described as a person who might be expected to be sympathetic to her position. As she tearfully relates, she is pregnant with the child of her hometown boyfriend, also age 16. What oh what, she pleads, is she to do?

Congressman Goodman, a staunch supporter of abortion on demand, counsels that her life will be ruined should she bear this child. He recommends a friendly neighborhood abortion clinic, takes her there himself, and pays for her abortion as an act of kindness and charity.

This is a scandal. Congressman Goodman is a murderer. He had no business counseling this young woman in the first place, and less procuring the destruction of her child. He should resign from Congress in disgrace. He should be criminally prosecuted, and jailed for a term measured in decades. Here is a man who gratuitously volunteered to kill.

But that's just my opinion. It's not the law. And, according to any number of prominent American politicians, clergy, academics, and the like, nothing with even a hint of moral concern has transpired. At the very least, many would insist that -- whatever the moral aspects of these events -- they're not my business, and not the business of the law, criminal or otherwise.

Fair enough.

And so we come once again to our original question: What exactly is it that Congressman Foley has done that is wrong -- let alone illegal?

Will Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid announce that, in their view, it is immoral for 16-year-olds to have sex (inasmuch as it's not illegal)? Will they trumpet the immorality of homosexuality? Will they work for state legislation raising the age of consent to 18? to 21?

We didn't think so.

[UPDATE]: Aside from some vague reference to “preying on ordinary young Americans” being “vile,” our friends at the New York Times seem similarly tongue-tied when it comes to identifying what’s wrong with anything Foley did. Heck, some of us have reached the point where 30-year-old women are “young Americans.” The Times is pretty clear on the point that something is wrong, and they’re sure it has something to do with Denny Hastert. See “Woulda. Coulda. Shoulda.” If we can't rely on the New York Times for moral clarity, we've come to a pretty pass.