I guess that the "powers that be" know this because of the 4-5 decisons that don't imply that a moral conclusion was made. In general, many of our institutions have become "make work programs" that don't do much.

To boldly go...

Thoughts on Clarence Thomas?
Man or sock puppet?
Intellectual or well-trained "seal"?
Still a pervert?
Deserving of the moniker "Uncle Tom"?

I look forward to your book.

I've just purchased your work, and I must say the opening chapter grabbed my attention. I'm wondering if O'Connor regrets her vote on Bush v Gore.

I listened to your interview on Fresh Air last week, and you made one comment that was troubling to me. In discussing the decisions and state-of-mind of Sandra Day O'Connor, Terry Gross asked you about your sourcing for what you were describing. Your response was (and I'm paraphrasing from memory), "You're just going to have to trust me on that."

My question is why should we trust you on that? I think a very good case can be made that the American people have been seriously harmed in recent years by journalists using anonymous sourcing to disseminate misinformation and engage in character assassination. While I don't think Justice O'Connor's emotional state or decision-making process about her personal life rise to the level of the Valerie Plame incident, for example, nonetheless, any journalist who uses the "you'll just have to trust me" approach with their sources in this era of journalistic frivolity and untrustworthiness harms his or her own credibility.

In a broad sense, I can see some value of anonymous sourcing for certain kinds of stories, but I've reached the point where I feel burned so often by these sources that any journalist who uses them raises doubts with me, rather than provides illumination. I found the Fresh Air interview interesting and I think it's clear you've done compelling work. But at this point, that comment killed my willingness to buy your book.

If I'm alone in this, so be it. But I am interested in your thoughts on this, and I'm certainly open to having my mind changed.

I'm curious to know if Bush v Gore and subsequent cases/issues have affected the personal relationships among the justices. I've read that Scalia and Ginsberg (and their spouses) had at one time the closest social relationship on the Court. Still true (if it ever was)?

Also, I seem to remember some political gossip that Scalia was muttering about resigning if Kerry won in '04. What's his state now? I gather that Souter, Ginsberg and Stephens are hanging on till January '08. Will El Nino go away if the Republicans lose (please God!) in '08?

Great point, wonderfully made.

Reminds me of the joke about the man and the goat.

Valdron, you're not responding to what he actually wrote. The talk of weighing 51% vs 67%, deciding what level counts as integrity, and why the whole question isn't a sign of moral relativism is heated, but he's doing nothing of the sort. He's saying quite plainly that he disagrees with the image of the court as politically motivated but believes that the court (or at least its majority) betrayed its principles on that case. Without knowing how many votes each has cast, I don't know if that means 99.7% or 99.8% percent, but presumably either way he means it as a blanket statement and not one subject to playing with numbers.

You're entitled to say that one sellout like that is more than enough. I know I would. You're also entitled to distrust his report, in light of how votes on federalism so often seem to shift with desired outcome. Again, I sure would. But give the guy a fair chance, before you sound like Maureen Dowd.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

He probably should have added the proviso "in closely divided Supreme Court decisions involving hotly disputed aspects of constitutional law," as I think that's what he really meant.

Just want to take the opportunity to thank you for your journalistic work. Since the days of the Clinton impeachment, I've trained myself to look up and listen when you're the talking head on the tube and to look for your articles in The New Yorker, etc. I don't think I've ever been ill-served by doing that, in fact, I think you've saved me a lot of time reading through or listening to lots of crap.

You need to read University of Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein's writings on judicial minimalism, which is probably the least partisan and ideological decision-making system for a modern Supreme Court justice.

Also, you should look at the hypocrisy of Scalia's decisions on the Violence Against Women Act, on Drug-Free School Zones, and on medical marijuana.

Jeff,

Do you think that Clarence Thomas gave false testimony during his confirmation hearings?
In the years since, it appears almost certain - at least to me - that he gave untrue answers to questions that he should have been able to easily respond to. Specifically, his statements on Anita Hill and his familiarity with pornography are two of the most obvious areas. There are other issues that arise, if you read the books like Strange Justice or David Brock's books on the subject. I'm sure you are even more familiar with some of the other concerns about his credibility.
So, do you believe that he did give false testimony? And if you do, is there any possibility at all that Democrats may one day raise this as an issue?

Frank

This is the fundamental difference between judicial "conservatives" and the sane world: the former sees the protections in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) as an exclusive list. The only possible philosophical backing for this would be their view that rights are bestowed to the people by the government -- Hobbes' Leviathan. This is in direct conflict with the more mainstream Locke/Jefferson philosophy expressed in the Declaration if Independence, which maintains our rights are "inalienable" and "endowed by our Creator."
This places much of the Roberts/Scalito/Thomas agenda, along with the Bush administration's actions -- torture, scuttling habeas corpus, The Patriot Act, the unitary executive scheme, etc. -- in a logical and frightening framework: The government may do whatever it wants for any reason or no reason at all.
It is hard to picture Barry Goldwater signing on to this line of thinking.
These people pose a threat to the basic idea of American freedoms and, hence, the basic idea of America itself. In this way, it is difficult not to see their actions as impeachable, if not outright treasonous.

The first link doesn't work and it is a good review, so here it is again. Thanks, om.

Meet the Supremes.

What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins

I disagree. Citing a percentage of integrity is intended to expose how hollow his point is.

What's he really saying? That the Supreme Court members behave with some level of integrity, except when they choose not too?

Give me a break.

I don't know the joke about the man and the goat. But I do know the joke about the woman who will sleep with a man for a million dollars.

Integrity which is dependent upon the stakes at play is not integrity at all.

The Court is corrupt and capricious.

Beneath the robes, they are naked.

I am sorry I missed the Terry Gross interview.

Go here, click the "Listen" button. (A long excerpt from Chapter 1 is available there, too.)

most anyone who studies the courts understands the fundamentally political nature of the judiciary. i think toobin underestimates the estimations of law professors in this. if the judiciary is tasked with interpreting the law, it only follows that jurists' political philosophies (ideology) will inform those interpretations. and if politics at its most fundamental level is determining who gets what and how (a decidedly political science-y definition to be sure), then all legal judgments are by definition political. but more than that, because party affiliation is an expression of political philosophy, it follows that regardless of the judicial selection system used - some being less overtly partisan (the missouri plan) than others (direct partisan election) - the overwhelming majority of legal judgments follow party lines. the supreme court is no different from lower courts in this except that the lower the courts, the less room there is for legal interpretation (and therefor less room for political philosophy to inform decisions). but what makes the bush v gore decision interesting (outrageous) is that political philosophy (ideology) was pushed aside in order to make room for overt party affiliation to determine the decision.

=== The NYT review provides some good reasons for why that is and also strongly speculates that O'Connor is among the handful of justices who spoke to Mr. Toobin. ===

Here ya' go!

A Scottish old timer in Scotland, in a bar, talking to a young man.

The Old Man says, "Lad, look out there to the field. Do ya see that fence? Look how well it's built. I built that fence stone by stone with me own two hands. I piled it for months."

"But do they call me McGreggor-the-Fence-Builder? Nooo..."

Then the old man gestured at the bar. "Look here at the bar. Do ya see how smooth and just it is? I planed that surface down by me own achin' back. I carved that wood with me own hard labour, for eight days."

"But do they call me McGreggor-the-Bar-builder? Nooo..."

Then the old man points out the window. "Eh, Laddy, look out to sea...Do ya see that pier that stretches out as far as the eye can see? I built that pier with the sweat off me back. I nailed it board by board."

"But do they call me McGreggor-the-Pier-Builder? Nooo..."

Then the old man looks around nervously, trying to make sure no one is paying attention.

"But ya fuck one goat..."

Thank you so much!  I am tired and worn out from a terrible day at work.  I went over the paragragh and was too brain-dead to see it.

Hoppy, just go ahead and say it next time!  Have pity!

Jan

oh, my god!  I tried to tell that joke and I forgot that he had built all of the other structures!  Thanks for reminding me how it goes!  I love to tell it with an accent!  (the last time I told it it fell flat because I forgot that important little point!)

My friend's son told it at a Thanksgiving dinner with grandparents etc.  It also fell flat!

Ahhhhh---the risk of bein funny!

Jan

Importantly – crucially -- 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.

I have a modest proposal that should focus the attention and analysis of the Citizens towards politics in an entertainment way and increases the participation in voting. It will attempt to also attempt the almost impossible. It will keep politics as honest as any American sport!

What I am talking about is assigning legislation to each game for the sport in season that is followed in Vegas. Every bet has a requirement that 5%, in the beginning, must be an up or down vote on the legislation.

No profession is better a drawing a line in the sand than bookies! This will encourage the increase in knowledge about the political process. Money, not soft war issues are on the line now!

It will keep the politics of sport honest. Everyone knows what happens to those who throw games. Politicians will not surprise these professionals with late night deals
against the public spread. There is a grave and deep consequence for cheating.

What a game, what a life, what a line, money talks
everything else walks and is unimportant.

Together, by forming a Political Gambling Community,
the Citizens can bet for good government!

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Another great question I would like to see answered. Mr. Toobin? This is an interactive medium so could you please answer?