Ed Whelan over at National Review's Bench Memos blog takes a little slam at the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Et Tu, WSJ? [Ed Whelan]

In the course of an otherwise intelligent discussion of the Supreme Court’s just-ended term, this house editorial in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal states: “In outlawing a late-term abortion procedure and on racial preferences, [Justice Kennedy] sided with the four conservatives.” (Emphasis added.) Set aside the political labeling (which pervades the editorial). How can the Wall Street Journal editorialists state that the Supreme Court majority “outlaw[ed] a late-term abortion procedure”? Surely they must know that it was an Act of Congress, signed into law by the President, that generally “outlaw[ed]” partial-birth abortion and that the Supreme Court majority ruled merely that the law is facially constitutional? Why does this elementary distinction so readily escape bright and educated minds?

Despite the best efforts of high school civics teachers and constitutional law professors to explain the Supreme Court's role in our national life, the sad fact is that it's the way the Court works nowadays. You can try to argue that the Court doesn't make laws or sign treaties -- but nowadays it does. How else does one explain the Court's insane ruling that a portion of the Geneva Conventions intended to apply to civil wars applies instead to international terrorists -- effectively notifying congress and the president that they've signed a treaty with al Qaeda.

In short, it's a distinction without much of a difference -- and a simple mistake that's easy to make.