John Yoo has an op-ed (or, as Publius calls it, an 'op-ed', "because it’s more of a rant than a op-ed") in today's Wall Street Journal, and it really is as bad as you might expect ("heavy on visceral, emotional contempt for judges", as Publius describes it). There's so much in it that's so bad that if I wanted to do a comprehensive critique, I wouldn't know where to begin.
Fortunately, I'm just going to go for snark, so I'll focus on the part that's most outrageously, bizarrely wrong:
The court must have thought its stunning power grab would go unchallenged. After all, it has gotten away with many broad assertions of judicial authority before. This has been because Congress is unwilling to take a clear position on controversial issues (like abortion, religion or race) and instead passes ambiguous laws which breed litigation and leave the power to decide to the federal courts.So...the problem with segregation was its ambiguity? Damn those wishy-washy Dixiecrats! If only they had made their support for white supremacy clearer, instead of trying to straddle the fence, the Supreme Court wouldn't have had the opportunity to meddle in racial issues!
I mean, really: is it conceivable that anyone could actually think this?
Also: Boalt: one of the top law schools in the country. Can anyone explain to me why they employ this clown?
[That's all, folks]
|