Jan Crawford Greenburg always seems to be a very poor technical writer.
Cite:
“She didn’t agree with the reasoning in those cases, and she explained why she thought the Court got it wrong—and why she disagrees with the Roberts Court’s view that courts generally should be less willing to step in and effect change.
But her criticisms were grounded in law, not rhetoric—a much-needed liberal voice of clarity and calm at the end of a contentious term.”
Does she go on to elaborate the non-rhetorical quotes of criticisms and clarity? No. Perhaps just a little bit? No, not in any way.
The mention of Kennedy is nothing more than a segue into a longer self-serving diatribe of liberal observations on the Roberts court by Ms. Greenburg.
Not exactly terse, but it was worth reading. Court-watchers like Ms. Greenburg have an interesting closet-paranoia that makes them look and act as though the whole American experiment depends solely upon Roe vs. Wade. If you don’t know the look I am talking about, think Nina Tottenberg.
I agree that the introduction of Sullivan, and her views, is poorly done. Like you, I was left wanting to know more details about her arguments.
Ms. Greenburg is to me much less of a partisan flag waiver than Totenburg and the woman at the NY Times that follows the Supreme Court (Greenhouse? Greenlaw?). She makes a good case that some credentialed law experts, unhappy with the conservative direction of the Court, have resorted to ad hominem attacks and questioning of motives.
“But other law professors also are shouting into the microphones, including the former dean of my great law school, Geoffrey Stone. I listened incredulously during a panel discussion I had recently with Stone—an obviously smart and engaging man who has made some important contributions in his day—as he repeatedly slammed the new Roberts Court for caring only about rich people, white people and corporations.”
A more subtle question that she mentions but does not explore very deeply is the role of the Supreme Court. Many Liberals, including Kathleen Sullivan, are focused on outcomes. They seem to say that if interpreting and applying the law will result in what they deem to be an undesirable outcome then the Court should rule differently.
“Cohen and Thai are especially exercised about the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the Alabama woman who sued Goodyear for pay discrimination. The Court ruled 5-4 that she hadn’t filed her complaint within the 180-day period the federal law required, prompting a sharp dissent from Justice Ginsburg, which she summarized from the bench.
Supreme Court practitioners on the Left and Right were taken aback by the dissent—and subsequent coverage of a case that, in practice, has limited impact. The Court did not make up this law—it interpreted it, and Congress is free to change it—as it is now in the process of doing (perhaps the point of Ginsburg’s bench statement).”
I’ve read Greenberg’s article several times now and I can’t find the “self-serving diatribe of liberal observations” that you do. I think the article, though flawed, is a fairly written bit of journalism, not advocacy.
Jan Crawford Greenburg always seems to be a very poor technical writer.
Cite:
“She didn’t agree with the reasoning in those cases, and she explained why she thought the Court got it wrong—and why she disagrees with the Roberts Court’s view that courts generally should be less willing to step in and effect change.
But her criticisms were grounded in law, not rhetoric—a much-needed liberal voice of clarity and calm at the end of a contentious term.”
Does she go on to elaborate the non-rhetorical quotes of criticisms and clarity? No. Perhaps just a little bit? No, not in any way.
The mention of Kennedy is nothing more than a segue into a longer self-serving diatribe of liberal observations on the Roberts court by Ms. Greenburg.
Not exactly terse, but it was worth reading. Court-watchers like Ms. Greenburg have an interesting closet-paranoia that makes them look and act as though the whole American experiment depends solely upon Roe vs. Wade. If you don’t know the look I am talking about, think Nina Tottenberg.
Comment :: Monday, 23 July 2007 @ 18:36 AM
I agree that the introduction of Sullivan, and her views, is poorly done. Like you, I was left wanting to know more details about her arguments.
Ms. Greenburg is to me much less of a partisan flag waiver than Totenburg and the woman at the NY Times that follows the Supreme Court (Greenhouse? Greenlaw?). She makes a good case that some credentialed law experts, unhappy with the conservative direction of the Court, have resorted to ad hominem attacks and questioning of motives.
“But other law professors also are shouting into the microphones, including the former dean of my great law school, Geoffrey Stone. I listened incredulously during a panel discussion I had recently with Stone—an obviously smart and engaging man who has made some important contributions in his day—as he repeatedly slammed the new Roberts Court for caring only about rich people, white people and corporations.”
A more subtle question that she mentions but does not explore very deeply is the role of the Supreme Court. Many Liberals, including Kathleen Sullivan, are focused on outcomes. They seem to say that if interpreting and applying the law will result in what they deem to be an undesirable outcome then the Court should rule differently.
“Cohen and Thai are especially exercised about the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the Alabama woman who sued Goodyear for pay discrimination. The Court ruled 5-4 that she hadn’t filed her complaint within the 180-day period the federal law required, prompting a sharp dissent from Justice Ginsburg, which she summarized from the bench.
Supreme Court practitioners on the Left and Right were taken aback by the dissent—and subsequent coverage of a case that, in practice, has limited impact. The Court did not make up this law—it interpreted it, and Congress is free to change it—as it is now in the process of doing (perhaps the point of Ginsburg’s bench statement).”
I’ve read Greenberg’s article several times now and I can’t find the “self-serving diatribe of liberal observations” that you do. I think the article, though flawed, is a fairly written bit of journalism, not advocacy.
Comment :: Monday, 23 July 2007 @ 21:28 PM