Comments on: Zing!

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:52:08 +0000

#16 I meant to write “unfettered power of the executive”, and the reference was to Bolton et al. But I think Barry sums up the VC crowd pretty well at #24

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:07:43 +0000

IMHO, the best summing up of EV was maday by Jim Henley (http://www.highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2004/06/30/3505):
“It’s not like Eugene Volokh thinks much of me, either, but I’ve always considered his specialty to be showy moral handwringing on the way to siding with Power anyway. The further you get from standard Republican issues like guns and university speech codes, the more likely he is to arrive, with exquisite regret, at the conclusion that the State, particularly when helmed by George W. Bush, must have its way.”

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:06:01 +0000

But of course the constitutional issue they raise won’t be present for ordinary criminal defendants

But of course, plenty of other constitutional issues do arise for ordinary criminal defendants.

EV’s being almost deliberately obtuse; the remark in the footnote about people with limited financial means is the key. Libby can afford all the counsel he needs; he doesn’t need an amicus brief.

By: bj4k

bj4k — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:34:44 +0000

This guy is in the trenches, and he’s saying, why don’t all these grandstanders do something useful and provide an amicus brief for a more worthy defendant? And he has a point. They are grandstanders, and the defendant is not particularly worthy, nor does he lack adequate representation.

By: Ken C.

Ken C. — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:37:32 +0000

Isn’t it time to torture Scooter Libby? How else can the proper authorities discover what he knows about the high-level plot to destroy our atom spies? They might strike again at any moment!

By: engels

engels — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:21:07 +0000

“Byline” would be the right word, rather than “strapline”…

By: engels

engels — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:15:32 +0000

I share Harry’s puzzlement. I remember reading this strapline in the Independent last year.

The United States’ Supreme Court has ruled that military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay breach the human rights of inmates. But in an age of suicide bombings and mass civilian casualties, do our laws themselves need to be rewritten? Are we just ignoring the unpalatable truth: that the survival of our society may depend on the legalised torture of terror suspects? Here, America’s leading liberal lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, presents the case for radical reform

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1154084.ece

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:01:13 +0000

One thing that most are missing (and Eugene must deliberately be missing, if he’s an actual libertarian) is that Scooter Libby has acquired an actual bipartisan circle of defenders. People suspicious of cronyism feel that this represents the insiders rushing to the defense of one of their own. Particularly as Scooter’s crimes are those which they feel should only apply to outsiders (like Clinton).

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:59:28 +0000

Posted by harry b: “I’ve heard him described as a liberal a couple of times before, and am also curious why. Does anyone know? (I don’t care much, but enough to read wikipedia which, if accurate, does nothing to sovle my puzzlement).”

Taking you at face value:

1) Dershowitz opposed torture, and denied that Israel tortured. Until the gov’t of Israel admitted that it did, at which point Dershowitz supported torture.

2) Dershowitz proposed ‘torture warrrants’ after 9/11.

3) Dershowitz supported the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, and stated a philosophy which could be summarized as ‘kill them all and let God sort them out’.

Now, liberals tend to feel that this is not liberalism; right-wingers seem to feel that it fits in perfectly well. Except when they’re d*mning liberals for being unwilling to do such things. But I’ve never understood right-wing logic.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:28:29 +0000

John Q, why do you believe that Barnett is a “high-powered advocate[] of the unfettered power of the law”?

By: Alex R

Alex R — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:40:58 +0000

rd, I strongly suspect that the “friends” of Volokh that Kieran refers to are some of the law professors signing the amicus—such as Volokh Conspiracy blogger Randy Barnett—rather than Scooter Libby himself. I rather doubt that Libby is a friend of Volokh’s, though what do I know?

By: The Blue Flautist

The Blue Flautist — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:23:50 +0000

rd,
Did you read Judge Walton’s statements during the sentencing hearing before the amicus brief? He did address the issue, though on mostly pragmatic grounds, i.e if the grounds on which the brief is based were accepted, then prosecuting attorneys general and other cabinet officials would become pretty much impossible. I also doubt that any of the authors could be considered liberal in the sense used on blogs like this.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:55:11 +0000

Snap!

By: clyde mnestra

clyde mnestra — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:12:50 +0000

As to the “entertaining and oft-chonicled tradition of bitchy footnotes and sarcastic asides from the bench,” you happen to know of other examples in which professioral amici were bench-slapped this way? I think that’s the source of the objection, whatever its merits.

You’re right that there’s more than a little self-interest in objecting to it. But I suppose you’re equally vigilant to call attention to all the footnoted sarcasm you’ve witnessed . . . or is it only a narrow class of instances that bear ention, when a certain class of conspirators are on the sharp end of it? I think there’s a selectiveness about both commentaries, and if anything I find the obsession with the other blog the more puzzling.

By: rd

rd — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:07:28 +0000

I hadn’t known Eugene Volokh was any particular friend of Scooter Libby. Or perhaps “friend” is just meant as being the same side of the left/right divide. In which case I guess authors of this blog won’t complain about being tied to their “friend” Fidel Castro, etc.

In any case, the point of the post is comprehensible enough. Several law professors, on the left and right, raised a constitutional issue about the appointment of special prosecutors like Fitzgerald. What’s puzzling about Walton’s response is not its snideness but its utter unresponsiveness to the argument. Walton just threw off a jibe implying the law professors wouldn’t have bestirred themselves for an ordinary criminal defendant. But of course the constitutional issue they raise won’t be present for ordinary criminal defendants, just the vanishingly small subset targeted by special prosecutors. (And as others pointed out upthread, Dershowtiz has represented dozens of death row inmates.)