Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Supremes Discussed
First, here is a discussion not to be missed. Two men who help make decisions that affect 300 million people, speaking about their thought processes. You seldom see the justices in extended serious discussion; both Scalia and Breyer were impressive. I haven't been a big fan of Scalia, but his often-remarked great charm was in evidence — if not fully persuasive in his approach, at least it helps you to understand his logic.
The above discussion was about a year ago at the American Constitution Society. What led me to it was this discussion between Dahlia Lithwick and Jan Crawford Greenburg about covering the Court. This was a model conversation about an important topic by two people who have some fundamental disagreements. Just great. Greenburg's empathy for Clarence Thomas changed my perspective about the man, even if some of his ideas still feel off-putting as well.
The one objection: at the conclusion Greenburg and Lithwick invoked the mind-numbing journalistic formula: “well, if we get angry letters from both sides then we must be doing it right.” Put aside the smugness and dismissive arrogance of the premise; you really do have to consider the content of the criticism and not concern yourself with the “side” it is coming from. A disappointingly dumb meme from the journalistic community, what else is new?
Here is Greenburg's blog
Here is the Ann Coulter of the Left, Maureen Dowd, comparing Thomas to OJ Simpson