Radley Balko is picking up where Eugene Volokh left off the other day, blasting StopTheACLU for its utterly dishonest portayral of ACLU positions. StopTheACLU hammers the ACLU for turning down money from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations rather than sign a statement declaring that they have no involvement with anyone on a terrorist watch list. But as Balko notes, the ACLU can't do that because they represent people who are on the terrorist watch list and shouldn't be. And given that the FBI has admitted that the watch list contains innumerable errors and that they no longer have any control over who gets put on it, it's a good thing someone represents those who are unjustly placed on it. So the ACLU is actually being honest here and taking a huge financial hit because of it. That should be applauded. Only the delusional extremists at StopTheACLU, who seem to think that anyone who dares to question anything the government does in the war on terrorism is a traitor and a terrorst themselves, could turn that into something negative.
Here's one great example of how many Americans have lost their right to travel as a result of the mistakes on this no fly list. I have a friend who had this happen to her and her husband. They are an elderly couple, and her husband was actually a holocaust survivor, but somehow they got deemed a terrorist threat and put on the no fly list and they were prevented from going to Germany to sell some property they owned there. Their orderal carried on for months before they got their name cleared.
And on the other side of the political spectrum, we have the highly dishonest ad from NARAL about John Roberts. Factcheck.org has a thorough takedown of this obnoxious piece of deceit. Roberts argued before the court that an 1871 KKK law could not be applied to abortion protestors, but that does not mean he was "defending clinic bombers". The case did not involve any bombing, but only protesting, and the relevant issue was not whether what they did was okay but whether a particular Federal law applied in the case. Roberts quite carefully pointed out that the defendants were still culpable under state law and should be held so. It's simply dishonest to imply that Roberts "excuses violence" or to try and tie him, as this ad does, to Eric Robert Rudolph's clinic bombing that took place 7 years after the case in question.
- Log in to post comments
The NARAL ad is disgraceful. Exactly what we DON'T need during the confirmation cycle. Principled criticism, sure. But this sort of dishonesty simply adds to the downward spiral of a process that is already broken. And it tends to show, once again, that the left is disorganized and lacks a coherent strategy. It gives the right every excuse needed to unleash the hounds. What a shame.
Although the NARAL ad is somewhat misleading, it's not nearly as bad as the Factcheck article claims it is. Factcheck's transcript itself shows that although it doesn't SAY the bombing was after Roberts wrote the brief, it does show the dates of the events on the screen.
The blog Lawyers, Guns and Money has two good posts about the law in question: NARAL and Bray v. Alexander and FactChuck: Randall Terry=MLK. Bitch Ph.D. has a post with NARAL's response to FactCheck's article as well.
Of course, Keven Drum's rewriting of the ad isn't too bad and avoids most of the complaints (although downplays how Roberts was probably incorrect about the law).
Me:
I disagree. This is a typical attack ad of the type that NARAL would scream bloody murder about if it was aimed at someone they agree with. The sole purpose of the ad was to make it look like Roberts thinks bombing abortion clinics is okay and that he defends those who do it. That's why they juxtaposed those images. If that type of ad is aimed at those we agree with politically, we all call it slimy politics. But when our side does it, we excuse it away on technicalities. I'm calling out both sides. I think this kind of ad is reprehensible, regardless of what cause it goes to support.
Roberts argued before the court that an 1871 KKK law could not be applied to abortion protestors, but that does not mean he was "defending clinic bombers".
This is true, and I wish that people would stop suggesting that, just because a lawyer takes a case and works for his client, he necessarily agrees with what the client is alleged to have done. The lawyer may or may not agree with what the client is alleged to have done--but you can't make the determination merely because the lawyer takes (or doesn't) take the case.
raj: only in this case the group Roberts wrote the brief for were not his clients. He wrote a amicus brief as a deputy solicitor general. In fact, he probably had a large part in deciding for which cases to file amicus briefs and for which side to argue.
He was under zero ethical obligation to argue for the side he did. If he had seen the law differently, he could have filed a brief against the protesters.
Me at August 12, 2005 10:31 AM
Point understood. But I'll merely point out that he indeed had a client--the US government--for which he did the brief. Actually the then current administration, but that's something of a quibble.
I'm not trying to suggest that his personal views on legal issues should not be examined. I'm merely trying to suggest that, just because a lawyer signs off on a brief regarding a subject on behalf of a client's position, that he necessarily agrees with that position. That's all that I'm saying. I'm a lawyer, and I could argue any side of any issue, and I've been called upon to do so.