May 26, 2012

"[I]f the court overturns Obamacare 5 to 4, Roberts’s 'stated goal of presiding over a less divisive court will be viewed as an irredeemable failure.'"

"Oh? Viewed by whom?"

George Will, pushing back Jeffrey Rosen (the source of the internal quote).

In case you're wondering why I never blogged about that Jeffrey Rosen article (which got a lot of attention), I thought it was the usual propaganda, quite boring to someone who's very familiar with all the law.

Did I fail you? Did you want me to pick it apart... explain everything... because it's being talked about... because it was in The New Yorker?

I have an interestingness standard, not an it-was-in-The-New-Yorker standard.

Oh, wait! I'm mixing up my Jeffreys. Jeffrey Toobin wrote the article in The New Yorker that I thought was the usual propaganda. Jeffrey Rosen's usual propaganda was in The New Republic.

Seriously, tell me if you want me to do more dissecting of the Jeffreys. They talk about law to the general public and thus have a lot of influence. Should I be more vigilant? Please advise.

43 comments:

Chase said...

Yes, I would like your perspective on both Jeffrey's views (I agree it is pre-emptive left-wing propganda in both cases). You have been in the past - and I do not say this as flattery - absolutely excellent in tearing apart their remarks before.

Just read the Toobin article last night. Toobin is an excellent writer, but sometimes surprisingly petulant and childish.

Rosen - well, he's obviously smart, and he's quoted way too often as a source when he has been shown after only a minute of analysis to be a pompous and self-righteous windbag.

So, my answer is please do!

David said...

Althouse, your dissection of these two would have to be done with a guillotine. I suggest you wait until the actual decision is published and put your effort into that.

David said...

Chase--you need to distinguish between smart and glib.

chickelit said...

Perhaps it's time to accept devisity--I mean to enact it as policy into law. Only when division is foisted upon us do we crave unity.

Embrace devision.

Paddy O said...

I agree with David. Save the effort for the decision and the aftermath. Enjoy the lovely Spring day and explore other paths of interestingness.

Chase said...

David,

You and I are both correct.

Paddy O said...

Didn't Obama have the goal of presiding over a less divisive government? Would Toobin call Obama's tenure an irredeemable failure?

Jim in St Louis said...

Professor- With the due respect to you as an educator, I would think that the topics you would need to dissect in a typical Jeffry(ether one) article would be of the most basic aspects of the court and law.

You would not put up with a student of yours showing up to class who had not done the preliminary reading, why should you coddle your blog readers by going back to the elementary reading of Federalist #81

Chase said...

The same liberal question has been asked since 2007 (will these guys never give up? Don't they look like the fools who told us we were running out of oil?):

"I asked Breyer why Roberts had failed in his efforts to achieve consensus and whether he might ever come closer to achieving these goals."
Writes Jeffrey Rosen in a New Republic article (with subscribers-only access):

Quayle said...

Yes, dissect them.

Shoddy, incompetent, and lazy reporting on the courts has done more damage than Roberts will ever be accused of doing.

Things like reporting that the court strengthened or weakened some substantive point when the issue before the court was only in civil procedure and the substantive matter was purely incidental.

(But perhaps we shouldn't expect the press to do what our public schools refuse to do: educate the public about how our system was designed to work.)

traditionalguy said...

The threats to call Roberts ugly names is not a legal argument. It's a peer pressure game played to file articles by doofuses with publisher deadlines.

Toobin has always been a useless hack with a Flying Wallenda way of positioning himself as a half critic and half supporter of any issue. He gets attention, but he has zero integrity, which makes him beyond BORING.

Save your brain power for better men than Toobin.

EDH said...

Should I be more vigilant? Please advise.

"Tear 'em up!!!"

Jay said...

Jeffrey Rosen's usual propaganda was in The New Republic.

Heh, and ding!

Chase said...

Your analysis is definitely worth your time and ours, Professor,precisely because

They talk about law to the general public and thus have a lot of influence.

Incredibly out-sized influence. But silence in the face of proaganda eventually allows the propagandist to win the day, or at least gain enough respect to be seriously considered by voters and policy makers, something that should never have gotten to such a point.

Ron said...

I assume Jeffery dissection is part of your due diligence....

Chip S. said...

Chase has made the essential point.

Chase said...

Chip,

I bow to your superior analysis.

dreams said...

I like it when Althouse and other pundits I read kick liberal butts.

edutcher said...

Ann, it's your blog and you should pick and choose what tickles you.

(is ticklingness a criterion?)

Rosen's comment, however, is nonsense. The Lefties want something to whine about.

Jon Burack said...

Ann, I recommend you pay as much attention to it as the Supreme Court Justices are likely to.

Chip S. said...

Is Chase a mobius?

Chase said...

Chip,

Please define so that I may answer.

I have posted here since the second month this blog was in existence. Don't know if that means anything to your question.

Thanks

Matthew Sablan said...

Making fun of Toobin is fun for every body.

Chip S. said...

Chase, I thought your comment on my comment on your comment was a clever bit of self-referential humor.

Sort of a mobius strip of wit.

But congratulations on your ability to persevere here.

deborah said...

What Chase said. You have the chops to dissect what is said by the Toobins, Rosens, Bazelons, and Lithwicks, and hopefully your posts will be forwarded in email. And of course, non-lawyers could use your insights.

Kirk Parker said...

Shrug.

I only read the New Yorker for the cartoons.

Kirk Parker said...

"Is Chase a mobius? "

Cut him in half down the middle; if there's still only one of him, then Yes.

The Crack Emcee said...

Oh, wait! I'm mixing up my Jeffreys. Jeffrey Toobin wrote the article in The New Yorker that I thought was the usual propaganda. Jeffrey Rosen's usual propaganda was in The New Republic.

No - they're two propagandists working for two propaganda organs - I know that, you know that, we know that. So what's the point?

Talk about something we don't all know about - like how cultism "works."

That seems to be a major source of ignorance, here in Romney Land,...

elkh1 said...

That's why the Justices are the Supremes and are there for life.

The genius of the Dead White Guys.

Haven't we heard Constitutional scholar Pelosi said after Kelo losing her waterfront home to a dump-site that the Supremes were like gods, that we shouldn't do a thing to overturn the Supremes? Now we have another "god", so we can dispose of the "like gods", yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Robin said...

I don't get Toobin's reputation, I find he's a hack. And one that often gets basic facts about the cases he's writing about wrong. Look at some of the criticism of his Citizens United book and see how much he's criticized for making basic factual errors that undermine his theme.

Methadras said...

Why would I care about Rosens article when one of the dumbest human being alive by the name of Patrick Leahey chided the Chief Justice Urkel-style the other day to judiciously pass UrkelCare in the Senate. That is more interesting then whatever you didn't analyze in Rosens article. For us no less.

n.n said...

Resistance is futile? Equivalence is selective.

There will be no health care reform, let alone welfare reform, until society rules that progressive involuntary exploitation is unacceptable. It is also imperative to dispel any outstanding myths that dreams of instant gratification can be fulfilled without consequence.

Christy said...

Don't know about you, but I'll automatically discount the vote to uphold by one. 5-3 is much less divisive than 5-4, don't you think?

Strelnikov said...

Please don't.

DCS said...

Fisk away!

Break The Terror said...

It's sad when you post things at 9:13 AM that scream "merlot drunk," Ann.

Tim Raub said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DEEBEE said...

Nah Ann, do not waste your time on disecton. Now if castration is on the mneu that would be different.

DEEBEE said...

Nah Ann, do not waste your time on disecton. Now if castration is on the mneu that would be different.

Sam said...

As ever Ann thank you for your blog. I do not believe a dissection of the articles are necessary at this point of time. I eagerly await the decision and then let's discuss it. The Jeffreys are not adding to the debate.

timb said...

I would love it if you commented more on people who know more about the law than you do, Professor (like the Jeffreys). I realize that may mean you have to comment on many, if not most, of newly sworn in attorneys in Wisconsin. Still, I'm willing to hear more about how someone like Jenny, a 2012 graduate from Green Bay who already knows more about the law and politics than her former Con Law professor if it means you embarrassing yourself like this again.

Pretending to know about the law and the SCOTUS yet refusing to acknowledge Roberts was a liar at his confirmation hearing, that he sees himself as a super-legislator in a super Senate, and that Supreme Court judges have been roundly criticized by political actors since Marshall purposefully and willfully screwed Jefferson with Marbury v Madison is an embarrassment to all of us. It was, however, funny.

You are a lost ball.

JW said...

Sure, Ann. Have a go. I need a good laugh.

Greg said...

The answer here to preserving the Court is quite simple -- in the event of a 5-4 decision to strike down ObamaCare, the liberal justices must immediately sign on to the majority opinion in order to keep from appearing to be partisans.