Are We in "Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ" Territory?
Ummm... Jeffrey--
Bush v. Gore may be an exception to this pattern. This may be the case where there was subterfuge. The opinion of the majority was so different from their customary views on important subjects – like Federalism and equal protection – that it is reasonable to conclude that the decision was little more than an attempt to seal the election for the Republican.
Jeffrey: I count two "mays," a "reasonable," and a "little more."
Are you *that* scared of writing: "Bush v. Gore is an exception. The opinion of the majority was do different from their normal views that nobody not a Republican hack can argue that the decision was anything other than a successful stealing of the election for the Republican"?
And if you are *that* scared of saying what Bush v. Gore was, where else do you pull your punches in your book?
Yours,
Brad DeLong
But without the proper level of hedging words, one cannot be taken seriously. For example, if you say that Bush stole the 2000 election, that makes you a defacto DFH, and no one will listen to you.
He's just speaking the language of all reasonable master debaters.
September 24, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, that kind of writing can make even economists look good. :-)
September 24, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about this for not pulling punches:
The Supreme Court intervention in Bush v. Gore was by magnitudes the worst act of judicial corruption in the history of the United States. By allowing a group of corrupt ideologues to steal the presidency, those five Supreme Court justices have done uncalculated damage to our country.
It is a travesty that the four remaining participants in that crime are not now imprisoned for life.
September 24, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bah, humbug, and horsefeathers. Bush v. Gore isn't even the worst decision about the presidency in the last ten years. That distinction would belong to Jones v. Clinton. Every abuse of process predicted by the Clinton legal team and poo-pooed by the court came to pass.
The case was taken over by political zealots who had no interest in the interests of their putative client. There was coordination between civil and criminal investigations as Ken Starr used the power of his special prosecuter status to obtain information for Paul Whitehead's hit squad of goons/lawyers and to hold Monica Lewinski incomunnicado while they used it.
Both Starr and Whitehead should have been disbarred for their behavior. Paula Jones actually got far less than he would have following the advice of her original legal team. Of course Whitehead had no intention of representing the interests of Paula Jones. His entire purpose was to "get" Bill Clinton. And thanks to the Supreme Court Of The United States it worked.
It also led us to where we are today.
September 24, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd settle for tar and feathering, and an indefinite display at the San Francisco Zoo.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 24, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reasonable according to whom? The Right? Well yes, of course.
Why is it the most uncivil bunch of traitors in the history of the United States get to set the parameters for debate?
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 24, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not nearly enough.
They are still appointed as Supreme Court Justices for life.
No one with good sense now respects the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. They have destroyed a reputation built up over two centuries. That reputation will remain severely damaged for at the very least two generations, if not forever.
Add to that, their self-defined power to define what is and is not Constitutional should be removed from the textbooks. It is damned sure not in the Constitution anywhere, and they have proven that they cannot be trusted with such decision-making power.
At the very least, Supreme Court Justices should be required to undergo Senate confirmation at least every nine years (one per year), and each should be removed after 18 years. No special consideration for the Chief Justice. All service as a Supreme Court Justice should be considered together.
They cannot be trusted, and they live too long.
September 24, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you *that* scared of writing: "Bush v. Gore is an exception. The opinion of the majority was do different from their normal views that nobody not a Republican hack can argue that the decision was anything other than a successful stealing of the election for the Republican"?
Welll, I took it to be an ironic understatement, but YMMV.
September 24, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, I can't speak for Jeff Toobin about his anxiety level, but I can recreate the anxiety level of the lawyers for the publisher and the managers of the publishing company. No libel attorney is going to let his publisher client put out a book with the unqualified language in your version.
Even though your version is absolutely correct. Have you seen Alan Dershowitz's book on the evidence that Sandra Day O'Connor set out to prevent Gore's inauguration from the moment that she heard the initial network reports - that Gore had won Florida? [Dershowitz qualified his analysis, too, with an "if she said this...., it was unethical not to recuse herself," or some such escape hatch.]
September 25, 2007 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Very Serious People inside the beltway insist that you address their world view as the only reasonable one.
September 25, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even the hack Judge Posner agreed that Bush V Gore was bad law. He just thought it was justified by the outcome.
September 25, 2007 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTOH, the people stuck on the Beltway, when there's an accident on one of the bridges and a snowstorm, would like a view of other than the bumper in front of them.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 25, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. And it also helps us to remember just how long the press has worn that ring in its nose the Republicans have led it by.
September 26, 2007 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The title says it all Brad.
September 26, 2007 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would that be the same Very Serious People who hear someone refer to the "Democrat Party" and don't bat an eye, but go on to reply to the comment as though it was just a mispronunciation rather than an insult?
...or maybe even the same people who blow off Rush's comment about "phoney soldiers" but manage to get the Democrats to roll over/bend over about the moveon.org ad?
If the only way to be heard is to say drivel, then you're talking to the wrong people! (Yes, you may quote me)
Jan
September 28, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least MY bumper is patriotic. It says:
IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY
Jan
September 28, 2007 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, exactly those Very Serious People.
They're very important and on the teevee!
September 28, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mine is even more patriotic. It says:
Ron Paul for President 2008.
"You say I'm a dreamer. We're two of a kind. Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
September 29, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
VOTE FOR CTHULHU. Why settle for the lesser of two evils?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
September 29, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A persuasive argument gets the listeners to agree with the conclusion. Corollary: do not repel them while establishing the premises.
Preaching to the choir demands that you brandish your bona fides, repelling non-choristers with every phrase.
Toobin's argument is persuasive.
September 30, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink