Meeting Jan Crawford Greenburg
Beldar says:
I maintain a running mental list of “people whom I’ve never met, but who I’d buy as many rounds for as they’d let me, if I could just keep them talking where I could listen.”
I think we all have these lists. And for some time now, high on my list has been ace Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg.
So imagine how I felt when I got an e-mail from her on Wednesday, describing herself as a “fan” of this blog, and saying that she was coming to L.A. and wanted to meet me.
As regular readers of this blog know, Greenburg is the author of Supreme Conflict, an excellent book on the Supreme Court focusing on recent nomination battles. I gave it a rave review in this post. But she is also fast establishing herself as the top Supreme Court reporter in the country, supplanting the leftist and dishonest Linda Greenhouse.
So when she told me she reads my blog and wanted to meet me — well, it’s tough to find the words to explain how jarring, bizarre, unexpected, and completely cool that was. I quickly set her straight: if anyone was going to play the role of “fan,” it would be me. Anything else would just be ridiculous. But, of course I would be thrilled to meet her.
And so it was that yesterday evening, Ms. Greenburg and I sat down and had a couple of beers and hung out for upwards of 90 minutes or so. We agreed that what we talked about would not appear on our blogs. But I am not revealing any state secrets when I say that Ms. Greenburg is not only a fascinating person, but also someone who is completely down to earth. She is smart, funny, humble, and doesn’t take herself too seriously. Imagine talking to somebody with a personality like that — who has a regular seat at the Supreme Court, and speaks often with the Justices.
Beldar said of Jack Valenti:
I simply would that I had had a chance to hear him tell his tales unvarnished and in person — for no better reason than because I am a curious student of history, and he was [someone] who was so often . . . within arm’s length of its making.
For those of us who are fans of the Supreme Court, this is an apt description of Ms. Greenburg. She regularly scores exclusive interviews with Supreme Court justices — more so than any other person I can think of. She is constantly on hand when legal history is made, and unlike many of the clowns who cover the Court, she tells it like it is.
And she’s just plain good folks.
I’m always amazed at how blogging creates opportunites to meet impressive people. I don’t understand it, exactly, but I’m not arguing with it.
UPDATE: Check out more of Greenburg’s writing at her blog Legalities.
UPDATE x2: Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link. Glad to see he agrees.
By the way, I’m surprised that nobody noticed the subtle hat-tip I gave in the post about Bill Richardson and his praise of Justice White. Go look at it again. Get it now?
She would have blogged it herself, but she didn’t bring her laptop.
I’ve never said this before, and will likely never say it again.
I hate you, Patterico.
Seething with jealousy,
Jinnmabe
Jinnmabe (2875ea) — 4/28/2007 @ 5:36 amQuestion, knowing very little about the subject and you.
What if you had not given such a good review of her book?
Just asking.
Papa Ray
Papa Ray (035e8c) — 4/28/2007 @ 6:55 amWest Texas
USA
Papa Ray, if her book had been horrible, I probably wouldn’t have been terribly interested to meet her. The book is how I learned about her.
Patterico (de67ec) — 4/28/2007 @ 9:51 amGood call, Patterico. I wasn’t familiar with Greenburg’s work and clicked through to amazon thanks to your recommendations. For Pontifications newbies like me you should post a recommended reading list as some kind of sticky thread–something like “The ‘rico Statutes”. For those of us without legal backgrounds, it’d be useful catch-up and orientation.
Gary McVey (af935e) — 4/28/2007 @ 10:26 amI’ve read, appreciated and learned from Ms. Greenburg’s book and columns over the past months. She is everything a journalist should be, and the fact she reports on something I care about makes me even more of a fan. This is so cool and it couldn’t happen to a better guy.
DRJ (41a330) — 4/28/2007 @ 11:12 amUgh, Pat. Did I miss the link to Ms Greenburg’s blog?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 4/28/2007 @ 12:21 pmGood point. I’ll add one.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/28/2007 @ 12:30 pmJan Crawford Greenburg, in her interview with Justice John Paul Stevens, claims to have learned the “precise date he plans to retire.”
Did she dish?
steve (1c66cc) — 4/28/2007 @ 2:08 pmsteve,
She later explained on her blog that she had been joking.
Patterico (fc2868) — 4/28/2007 @ 2:19 pmShe later explained on her blog that she had been joking.
I’m guessing others missed the joke:
http://howappealing.law.com/010507.html
steve (1c66cc) — 4/28/2007 @ 2:50 pmsteve,
Indeed. As I told her last night, I had believed it too. Jokes don’t always come across in print the way they do in real life, where if you see someone taking your little joke seriously, you can immediately explain you were just kidding.
Patterico (3dea6b) — 4/28/2007 @ 2:59 pmFrom her blog:
OK?
Patterico (9e8b02) — 4/28/2007 @ 3:09 pm0Hello,
Please consider adding a link to my homepage, The
Internet Radio Network. At the IRN you can listen to
25 of America’s top Talk Shows for free via Streaming
Audio!
http://netradionetwork.com
Steve
Steve (06ec7b) — 4/28/2007 @ 6:38 pmNot a very interesting mind. But since on her blog she makes some silly comments about Gonzalez vs Carhart, defending the seriousness of the court I guess I”ll have to reply with Charles Fried and Michael Stokes Paulsen.
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 11:29 amI’m not particularly a Fried fan (he was disingenuous at the time in his defense of Alito and Roberts) or would agree with Stokes Paulsen[!] but at least they’re not ass-kissers or gossip columnists.
I have the same question as Papa Ray. I worry about you doing some favor trading, link-whoring, etc. Which makes things bland and compromised.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 11:51 amAF, I find just about anything she has to say to be far more interesting than just about anything you’ve ever said here. Harsh, I suppose, but no harsher than what you said — and way more more accurate than what you said.
TCO, I have the same answer to you that I had for Papa Ray. Did you read it? Guess what? The people I link are the people I like. If that makes me “compromised” in your view, then you are little better than a petty scold.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 1:42 pm“AF, I find just about anything she has to say to be far more interesting than just about anything you’ve ever said here.”
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 2:38 pmYou avoid the issue, which is not what I say but what Fried, Stokes Paulson, or Jack Balkin and others say. You wasted a lot of time on Jeffrey Stone, and now I’m glad you think Jan Crawford Greenburg is a nice person, but the decision in Gonzalez vs Carhart deserves to be taken seriously for its effects, not for its logic. You pretend otherwise.
When you want to get back to a discussion of ideas let me know.
AF,
I already told you that I have discussed partial-birth abortion on this site extensively. I feel no particular obligation to comb through my numerous posts to find the ones that discuss the fact that there are no Constitutional underpinnings to the argument that abortion rights are covered by the Constitution. But if you’re truly interested in my point of view, I did include links to a post that addresses that issue in one of my Geof Stone posts. Or you are welcome to browse through my abortion category. Or you can use my search function to search for partial-birth abortion.
It’s not like I haven’t addressed the issue ad nauseum.
What I don’t like is your condescending potshots at someone who is more than a “nice person” — she is arguably the top journalist covering the Court nowadays. The condescension is rich coming from you, since I can’t remember a time you ever advanced an original argument on my site. All you do is a) cut and paste endlessly long articles in my comment sections, and b) self-righteously pontificate about how you’re the only guy in the room who cares about the facts. It’s not a strong position from which to take cheap shots at a respected and talented journalist.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 2:50 pmConsidering that many of the comments here are by people who refuse to read the record of events about which they have opinions, cutting and pasting seems the best, simplest most economical and effective, thing to do.
And in this case two of the links I supplied here are to people who agree with you on the issue of abortion itself, but who are not happy with the way the case was handled.
The discussion in other words is not about the decision but about the politicization of discourse, and my comments had to do with Greenberg’s deferring to the trappings of authority. It is that that I find shallow and distasteful.
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 3:17 pmThe discussion in other words is not about the decision but about the politicization of discourse, and my comments had to do with Greenberg’s deferring to the trappings of authority. It is that that I find shallow and distasteful.
You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on whether that assertion is correct. However, I will say that I probably have a better basis for judging whether it *is* correct — given that (I’d bet money on this) you haven’t read her book, and I have.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 3:34 pmAF #17:
Are you saying legal decisions should be based on results rather than logic?
DRJ (3e5f88) — 4/29/2007 @ 5:01 pmFirst answer DRJ’s question, because it’s key.
Then answer me this: how does the decision have any real effect?
Why don’t you read Simon Dodd on this issue?
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 5:17 pmPat: Yeah, but the point still applies. You may (not sure, but I get these little inferences) be compromising from what you really think 100% to kiss a little ass. And this tends to water things down. To leave a bad smell. The other possibility is lack of critical faculty. In either case, I think you’re capable of better.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 6:34 pmcomment 18 also has this smell of puffiness, of kissing ass to someone with some power and influence.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 6:36 pmTCO,
Right. Because I called a respected and talented journalist a “respected and talented journalist.”
Whatever. I don’t recall a single comment of yours that you have ever left, TCO, that isn’t designed to try to denigrate someone — usually without any basis. Teflon Don of Acute Politics is a bad writer, according to you, as is Simon Dodd. And I’m link-whoring here, simply because I have expressed strong approval — of someone I strongly approve of.
Whatever, dude. If you don’t like it, there’s plenty of other blogs where people might meet your exacting standards — or (more likely) get less annoyed at you when they don’t, and you insist on pointing it out.
Or, as I believe I have noted, you can start your own blog and show us how a virtuous person really acts.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 6:47 pmDo they teach you that as a rhetoric trick, or are you just dumb enough to actually think this, Pat? When I fault you for putting something average on a pedastal, that does not mean that it is sub-average.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 6:49 pmIf you want me to stop posting here, I will, Pat.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 6:54 pmI fault you for claiming “something” is average without any evidence, or any indication at all that you have any idea what you’re talking about.
Just because your default mode of communication is criticism doesn’t mean that other people’s is also, or that genuinely meant praise is not genuine.
I’m not ordering you out of here. I’m telling you that when you engage in your B.S. criticism without backing it up, I consider it rude and I’m going to call you on it. And the ruder you are — and you are being rude in this thread — the harsher my pushback will be.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 6:59 pmPat:
A. You’re shifting the topic (is that a taught rhetoric trick)? Failure to back up arguments is a different issue than the saying something sucks=criticising praising the average.
B. Yes, I don’t always back points up, much. I try to be upfront, though, about level of assertion. (And, if you honestly want to go deeper in some area, I often can.) Also, note that I made a structured argument with examples for my assessment of Stubborn Facts.
C. If I’m not ordered off, I will stay here. After you get over your umbrage at my tone, you will see my points.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:19 pmWhen you declare that someone is praising the average — and provide zero (zilch, zip, nada) evidence that the “average” really is average — then you are saying something you can’t back up. And whacking you for that is fair game, especially when your unsupported criticism, as here, is rudely expressed.
Let’s stick with your claim that I am praising the average. What basis do you have to know the bona fides of Ms. Greenburg? Do you have any basis whatsoever for what you’re saying?
I’m supremely confident that you don’t — which makes your comments here just plain rude and stupid. Feel free to try to prove me wrong. Have you read her book?
If not, I recommend that you buy it and read it — and that you shut your word-hole in the interim, lest you make yourself look even more clueless than you have so far.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:27 pmUnless making yourself look clueless is one of those rhetoric tricks they teach you.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:40 pm“… but the decision in Gonzalez vs Carhart deserves to be taken seriously for its effects, not for its logic.”
It’s the law of the land; I have no choice but to take it seriously.
That was my point (and obviously so).
“How does the decision have any real effect?”
It chips away at the right to abortion. It increases the authority of the state; and you speak as if the lack of an exception for the health of the woman had no significance whatsoever.
Again you’re playing the advocate and asking questions you know the answer to in the hopes that I won’t be quick enough to respond. That marks the difference between lawyers and law professors. Lawyers are required to be ethical not logical: whatever works is good enough; and you’re happy with a win for your side.
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:40 pmIn the long run, though, a sloppy win is no good for any of us.
Pat,
a. I guess the shifting IS a rhetoric trick. Note, that I’m NOT disagreeing that you are justified in critizing me for not backing my points up. THat’s a legitimate gripe. But it does NOT justify mischaracterizing what I said. I’m sure that you’ve had third semester calculus, partial differential equations, etc. and understand the idea of different independant variables within a single dependant function.
b. I haven’t read any of her work. That’s why I was pretty clear about the tentative nature of my inferences. Really it’s more a comment/concern on you.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:43 pmIt chips away at the right to abortion. It increases the authority of the state; and you speak as if the lack of an exception for the health of the woman had no significance whatsoever.
How many fewer abortions will take place as the result of this decision? Simon Dodd had the answer, if you bothered to read the paper I linked in my post praising the Stubborn Facts blog. The answer is none. And the lack of an exception for the health of the woman doesn’t mean that a woman who supposedly needs this particular procedure can’t bring an as-applied challenge. But, there is substantial medical evidence for the proposition that this procedure is never necessary, so it may never come up.
That marks the difference between lawyers and law professors. Lawyers are required to be ethical not logical
Heh. Either you didn’t read my debate with Law Professor Geof Stone or you didn’t understand it. As any rational observer — and no, I don’t really include you in that group — could easily see from that exchange, logic was not the guy’s strength.
In the long run, though, a sloppy win is no good for any of us.
Well, I’ll give you that. It was a sloppy win, because it was Kennedy, and his reasoning was hampered by the fact that he insisted on upholding a precedent (Casey) with no basis in the Constitution.
I notice you didn’t answer DRJ’s question. See, that marks the difference between some of my commenters and you. You think I won’t notice if you’re not logical or evade a point; you’re happy with attempting a win for your side without addressing strong points that contravene your position.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:51 pm31: I picked up the looking bad on my own. See, I’m more interested in investigating things, in analyzing issues, than in making myself look good. Capisce?
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:54 pmReally it’s more a comment/concern on you.
A completely illegitimate concern unless you have a basis to believe that what I am saying is not true. Which you admit you don’t — as I already strongly suspected. So why open up your pie-hole when the things that come out of it are a) rude and b) unsupported by any basis in fact? Do you just enjoy coming across as a boor? Is that it?
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:54 pmSee, I’m more interested in investigating things, in analyzing issues, than in making myself look good. Capisce?
Capisco. I recommend that, in the future, you do your investigating and analyzing *before* you go around carelessly firing potshots at people without anything to back them up. You’ll look a lot less like the loutish uncle at the party — you know, the one who goes around saying inappropriate things to the guests; the one that everyone wishes would leave.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:57 pmWhat irritates me most about this is that you have taken a perfectly nice post about a perfectly nice person and turned it into this contentious thread where I am forced to lecture you on your clueless behavior. This is why the analogy to a party is so apt — everyone was having a perfectly good time until the louts like you and AF came in and made a scene.
It would be different if you had a point. But you never did, which makes the whole thing embarrassing for all concerned.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:59 pm“How many fewer abortions will take place as the result of this decision?”
Probably none. I never said otherwise. But it’s chipping away at the law:there will be a next time and you know it.
And that response will do for your response in re: princples.
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:01 pmAgain, you knew the answer when you asked the question.
You’re arguing to win not to discuss. If you were interested in a discussion of the issues you would have responded to the strongest arguments pf the opposition not just the weakest.
But that’s not an insult, just an observation.
Disagree, Pat. I had just seen a previous area where there was good reason for concern (and you have to give me that I at least had examples, had supports, had an argument, even if you think it wrong). When I see what might be similar behavior as I read further down, I note it. Also, I was clear to say that this was more of a concern than an assertion. I’ve learned to listen to that voice. I don’t take it as gospel or espouse it as gospel. But when something doesn’t smell right, I’ll say so. Note that for me “doesn’t smell right” does not equal “proven wrong”. It equals, “something doesn’t click, something bugs me, doesn’t add up right, even if I’m not sure of it”. (Is this too subtle for you? You’re a lawyer. You should know all these levels of argument and assertion. Heck, I’m just a dumb engineer.)
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:02 pmTCO,
Perhaps you don’t intend this but the impression your comments leave is that you primarily intend to insult Patterico’s opinions, rationales, and beliefs. Patterico doesn’t need me to defend him and that isn’t the point of my comment. However, internet manners aside, it is a tiresome and unproductive debating tactic. I encourage you to support your comments with facts and links so our discussions can be more productive.
DRJ (3e5f88) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:07 pmAnd that response will do for your response in re: princples.
Shorter AF: I don’t want to answer DRJ’s question because there is no good answer.
If you were interested in a discussion of the issues you would have responded to the strongest arguments pf the opposition not just the weakest.
See: Shorter AF. Pot and kettle.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:07 pmAF,
As I suspected, your objection is that the Supreme Court is chipping away at Roe v Wade. I agree with you. The problem with that approach is that it is results-oriented. That’s not how the law is supposed to work.
DRJ (3e5f88) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:09 pm37: I like a salon. I like a bull session. I like noodling things out. When I make a statement with a caveat, it should be taken as such. And heck, I should not need to bury everything with perpetual caveats either.
38: At the risk of enraging you: maybe what I ruined was a delightful ass-kissing opportunity. Of course several others seemed to disagree with you on the merits. (I didn’t. I just, sort of wondered…see.) And if anything your protestations of the poor ladie’s honor insulted just makes things worse and makes me beleive more that you were brown-nosing. No insult, just a…wonder.
P.s. All your comments about my failings in terms of style or motivation may have some real validity to them. But I’m trying to avoid the vanity of talking about me…and I am vain that way. As well as the side-tracking rhetoric trick of debating a differnt topic from the one at point.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:09 pm41: Yes, my comments were observations on Pat. He was plugging something and I questioned the reasonableness of the plug and what it says if he plugs stuff that doesn’t deserve it. I did make a short argument in the thread about Stubborn Facts. And neither he nor you addressed it. (for instance saying that Dahlia had more interesting points than SF). If you want to address the strongest arguments, please do so. Along with AF, I think it is a rhetoric trick and a debate tactic to go after the weakest points rather than discuss the most interesting and strongest ones.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:13 pmAnd I don’t mind drilling down on the weak points if we are disaggregating issues. But it’s sort of a standard of rhetoric trickery to muddle issues and to imply that showing one disaggregating point to be weak (or even false) discredits the overall argument. And given that the issues were DISAGGREGATED…sigh.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:14 pmDisagree, Pat. I had just seen a previous area where there was good reason for concern (and you have to give me that I at least had examples, had supports, had an argument, even if you think it wrong).
No. The first thing I linked was Dodd’s piece on Carhart. That was part of the body of work I was linking. Then I quoted something about Gonzales because a) I liked the fact that he agreed with me and b) I thought it was stated well. You picked on that for not being original, while totally ignoring the Carhart analysis, which was original analysis.
Plus, in this pattern of sucking up to power and influence, can you explain to me the power and influence at Stubborn Facts that I am sucking up to?
Maybe I was just saying that I liked something because I did — as in this post, where I said I liked someone because I did.
Now, I am still not ordering you out of here, whereas if confronted with the rude and drunk uncle at the party I would simply push him out the door at some point. I do this because I value openness to the exclusion of other values. I resort to bannings only in extreme situations. But I have lost interest in responding to you further, because it’s clear to me that you don’t appreciate how your rude behavior has been a stain on this thread, and it’s boring to everyone involved. I think I have made my point about your behavior sufficiently.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:14 pmAnd if anything your protestations of the poor ladie’s honor insulted just makes things worse and makes me beleive more that you were brown-nosing.
Sexism on top of everything else. You truly are a piece of work.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:17 pmAF,
As I suspected, your objection is that the Supreme Court is chipping away at Roe v Wade. I agree with you. The problem with that approach is that it is results-oriented. That’s not how the law is supposed to work.
See, AF, if DRJ is right here and that is your objection, then if you care about principle, you have defend Roe on Constitutional principle.
And that can’t be done.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:19 pmPat:
A. You won’t need to ban me. Just ask me to leave and I will honor it.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:23 pmB. The place where you said you really liked the writing was the Gonzales part. That was at least as prominent as the Carhart stuff. I assert more prominent (as it had a quote and as you said you liked the writing…note (2) specific factoids for ya.)
C. Even if I ignored the Carhart at the time, my comments on Gonzales stand and they have an argument and supports. You don’t want to respond to strongest points.
D. I know I have an annoying style in aggressiveness and in pickiness (I consider it pushing for insight.)
E. I don’t really have a strong stance for how SF would help you. Perhaps, you want to build a little pyramid of acolyltes? Quid pro quo? Not in any negotiated manner, but just a subtle influence on your touting?
F. Of course, maybe you really do like that stuff. In which case, I want you to improve your taste. You’re too smart to like mediocre stuff.
Simon’s quote on Gonzales wasn’t filled with analysis because he said he had already said everything there was to be said on it, from his point of view. And he linked that post, which had a very entertaining allusion to Apollo 13. If TCO were actually interested in assessing the worth of the blog, he might have followed that link.
But make no mistake: TCO’s entire reason for existence, as borne out by his every comment on this blog for months, is simply to belittle others and tear them down with specious and petty complaints.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:24 pm48: I thought you were done with me? And debate the topic at point. Me being an ogre is a misdirection. We’re discussing you being a shill. These are VERY independant variables, Pat.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:26 pm51. “Dude”, my shiTheadedness is an INDEPENDANT variable to your shiLLheadedness.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:28 pmI thought you were done with me?
I am now.
Patterico (5b0b7f) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:29 pmGoing to look at that link, now, Pattie.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:31 pmTCO,
Look at Patterico’s sidebar listing his Favorite Sites. I counted 122 links including Stubborn Facts. I bet each one of them has had boring moments or could be considered mediocre if the topics addressed aren’t things that pique one’s interest.
So why, exactly, do you think Stubborn Facts is a mediocre blog? I don’t get your preoccupation with dissing Stubborn Facts but now I’m curious why this matters so much to you.
DRJ (3e5f88) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:32 pmHey TCO… You know that hole? The one into which you place pie?
Yeah, shut it. You’re already an ass of epic proportions, and you’re only digging that hole deeper.
So zip yer man-pleaser, and piss off…
See, I lack the refinement of Pat. He won’t tell you to leave or ban you (though you’ve said plenty here that would have had me banning you were I – perish the thought – given such authority)…
But a lot of the rest of us would willingly and gladly state that you lower the level of discource.
So stfu…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:37 pmOk, I read it now. Did not see any interesting, non-trivial points there, Pat. It was just a post saying that PR is bad, so Gonzales should be fired (even if the issue is just trumped up). It doesn’t address the plusses and minusses of that strategy (firing). Doesn’t consider the “blood in the water” concern or the “how do you get someone else confirmed” concern. Doesn’t even bother teeing them up. The Dahlia article is much better.
Note, I say this as someone who doesn’t care one way or the other about Bush or Gonzales. Just analyzing the essays.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:39 pm56/57: It’s not superimportant to me or to Pat. We’re just discussing it. It was at least interesting enough for the guy to engage.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:43 pm…
Ok, i’ll bite…
WHAT isn’t “superimportant” to you or Pat (And how is it you know his mind)?
You aren’t discussing shit. You’re ripping on someone you likely haven’t heard of before Pat meantioned her name, and give basicly nothing to back up WHY you hold that view.
I’m not shocked though that yu’d find SF less than compelling. People tend to not praise something that they dislike based on deep-seated mental issues.
The only thing that’s important to me is whether or not you’re just going to stapple it, or keep up with the ass-hattery…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:48 pmTCO,
So you wanted to figuratively stir the pot and see what surfaced? It sounds like you’re bored, T.
DRJ (3e5f88) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:48 pm1- The decision was results oriented and illogical.
2- I am pro-choice.
Two different issues. I don’t expect anyone here to be pro-choice, but I have a problem with the way the case was decided, not only with the outcome.
“Shorter AF: I don’t want to answer DRJ’s question because there is no good answer.”
I’m sorry. I answered DRJ’s question directly but you must be assuming I was being more oblique than I was.
“… but the decision in Gonzalez vs Carhart deserves to be taken seriously for its effects, [only because we’re stuck with it] not for its logic. [since it’s so confused]”
Is that clearer?
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:51 pmNote that in 34 and 41, Pat, you respond to a comment about your using rhetoric tricks, with a comment about the “other side doing it”. What relevance does this have, unless you are ceding the point and falling back on the “Clinton lied, so Libby should get to also” meme?
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:57 pm60:
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 9:05 pma. I’m really holding myself back from teasing the heck out of you. This will be a good test for me, to see if I can resist doing so.
b1. If I’m ripping on anyone, it’s Pat, not the lady.
b2: I have a higher bar for “ripping” than you do. When I really get ripping, will have you stop by so you can see another level of criticism (with assertion).
c. I’m probably to the right of all those guys there and here. I just didn’t find anything interesting. Definitely no Volokh equivalent.
d. I’m glad that my continuation of comments or cessation is sooo important to ya.
61. Yes, I was bored. My comments were exploratory, but not completely random. I had some sense of something being off. That’s it.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 9:07 pm62: You sound like you can actually disagregate issues. Maybe you even know the difference between a curly d and a straight one when doing calculus. Please convert to conservatism.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 9:08 pmAF,
Is there any abortion decision that isn’t confused and confusing?
DRJ (3e5f88) — 4/29/2007 @ 9:13 pmAbortion is not part of the constitution. That is simple. The efforts to make it so are strained. I have someone that I respect very much who is on the left and a lawyer and pro choice, but thinks Roe v Wade is a joke.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 9:15 pmBy the way, AF, I’m marginally pro-choice. I accept legalized abortion but I want the details decided at the state level.
DRJ (3e5f88) — 4/29/2007 @ 9:17 pmPat, Please don’t get down. I don’t have anything personal against you. You have a nice blog, and a great life.
TCO (69ce0d) — 4/29/2007 @ 9:47 pmWhat Roe Vs. Wade Should have Said Edited by Jack Balkin. With essays by
Anita Allen, Akhil Amar, Jack M. Balkin, Teresa Stanton Collett, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Jeffrey Rosen, Jed Rubenfeld, Reva Siegel, Cass Sunstein, Mark Tushnet, and Robin West.
And here’s Sunstein on Carhart and Ginsburg’s dissent:
AF (d700ef) — 4/30/2007 @ 5:34 amThe justice argues that equality, not privacy, is crucial in the abortion right.
Don’t miss her 5/15/07 Legalities column.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 5/15/2007 @ 3:00 pm[…] — as ill informed in the Gibson interview. Which brings us to our exit question, via Patterico fave Jan Crawford Greenburg: Is Team Maverick guilty of reverse sexism, i.e. demanding a lower standard […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Carly Fiorina: SNL’s skit was sexist (371ae1) — 9/15/2008 @ 4:08 pm