Cheap shots against Palin
Nelson Lund
nlund at gmu.edu
Fri Nov 7 19:35:15 PST 2008
I don't know what goes on at Albany, but we don't obsess about such
things at George Mason. "EVERYONE" is therefore overbroad.
Nelson Lund
Paul Finkelman wrote:
> why should we care if Obama is an elitist -- since EVERYONE on this
> list is an elitist? We are ll working in an elite profession,
> surrounded by people who obsess about where they and their colleagues
> went to college or law school and how well they did in first year civ.
> pro.
>
> ----
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, NY 12208
>
> 518-445-3386 (p)
> 518-445-3363 (f)
>
> pfink at albanylaw.edu
>
> www.paulfinkelman.com
>
> --- On *Fri, 11/7/08, Scott Gerber /<s-gerber at onu.edu>/* wrote:
>
> From: Scott Gerber <s-gerber at onu.edu>
> Subject: RE: Cheap shots against Palin
> To: "Scott Gerber" <s-gerber at onu.edu>, "Joel Goldstein"
> <goldstjk at slu.edu>, paul.finkelman at yahoo.com
> Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 5:22 PM
>
> Steve Sanders, Joel Goldstein, and Howard Schweber have convinced me I'm
> incorrect about Obama being an elitist. He did make that infamous comment in
> San Francisco, I think it was, but my colleagues on the list have persuaded me
> I'm incorrect. I'm glad. I wish the academy felt like he apparently
> does.
> Scott
>
> *****************************
> Scott Douglas Gerber
> Ella & Ernest Fisher Chair in Law
> Professor of Law
> Ohio Northern University
> Ada, OH 45810
> 419-772-2219
> http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty_staff/faculty_profiles/scottgerber.html
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Joel Goldstein [mailto:goldstjk at slu.edu]
> Sent: Fri 11/7/2008 5:07 PM
> To: Gerber, Scott
> Cc: hamilton02 at aol.com; kbergin at stcl.edu; rs at robertsheridan.com;
> CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Cheap shots against Palin
>
>
> President-elect Obama selected Biden (Syracuse University College of Law) as
> his running mate instead of Kaine (Harvard Law School), Clinton (Yale) and Bayh
> (University of Virginia). Among those he reportedly relies heavily upon are
> David Plouffe (Delaware), Robert Gibbs (North Carolina State), and Claire
> McCaskill (Missouri). I would infer that President-elect Obama appreciates
> intelligent and intellectually engaged people but that he by no means believes
> that an elite pedigree is a prerequisite for those qualities.
>
> Joel
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Gerber, Scott <s-gerber at onu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I always benefit from Marci's posts. However, I hope she isn't
> suggesting that only people who teach at, or were educated at, Harvard, Yale,
> Princeton, etc., are educated and intelligent. That is elitisim. My sense is
> that President-elect Obama is an elitist in this regard.
>
> Scott
>
> *****************************
> Scott Douglas Gerber
> Ella & Ernest Fisher Chair in Law
> Professor of Law
> Ohio Northern University
> Ada, OH 45810
> 419-772-2219
> http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty_staff/faculty_profiles/scottgerber.html
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of hamilton02 at aol.com
> Sent: Fri 11/7/2008 2:55 PM
> To: kbergin at stcl.edu; rs at robertsheridan.com
> Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
>
> Subject: Re: Cheap shots against Palin
>
>
>
> What I find most troubling about this topic on this particular listserv is
> that we have had law professors at very good schools arguing that intelligence
> does not matter, education does not really matter, and that drawing distinctions
> between educational institutions is empty elitism. James Madison would have
> disagreed, among others. He despaired that the Constitution could not create a
> workable system without enough "virtuous" (read: knowledgeable,
> educated, and aristoratic) leaders to take the positions in government
> delineated. Why would anyone get up in the morning to teach in a law school if
> they truly believed that education is not a marker of talent or ability?
>
> As David Brooks has pointed out more than once, the Republicans have
> descended from a party of ideas that emphasized achievement and excellence for
> whom the erudite William F Buckley, Jr., was a standardbearer and leader, to one
> in which intellectuals are defending a literal know-nothing. Charles
> Krauthammer this morning in the Wash Post asserted that Palin was a victim of
> "elitism." Not so. She was a victim of her own shortcomings, and
> judged appropriately in the rough and tumble of American politics.
>
>
> The American Dream, which Obama embraced and the Republicans torpedoed, is
> based first on education, its ability to lift people out of their current
> circumstances, and a belief that high achievement at competitive schools is an
> important marker of quality. It was a particularly unfortunate time for the
> Republicans to choose someone so ill-equipped in this arena. These values were
> never more important, because the economy and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
> against terrorism generally, are far too complicated to be capable of being
> resolved through good handlers, expert advice, or Berlitz lessons on world
> geography, history, constitutional law, or political theory. It will take a
> President who has been trained to think critically at every level. That is what
> good education does. Whether Palin was briefed adequately or not before the
> Couric interview, she displayed a dazzling incapacity to ! solve problems
> because she could not even lay the groundwork to describe the !
> p!
>
> roblems she might have been elected to solve.
>
> It is not elitism to say that Palin was and is incapable. In addition to
> rejecting Pres Bush and the Bush years, the moderates who moved from the
> Republican ticket to the Democrat ticket, especiallly in response to the Palin
> choice, like myself, were rejecting the Republicans' demonization of
> intelligence and education. That's a crucial element of the suburban vote.
> The Party should not expect to get those voters back until they have changed
> this poisonous element.
>
> Marci
>
> Marci A. Hamilton
>
> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
> Yeshiva University
> 55 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10003
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kbergin at stcl.edu
> To: Robert Sheridan <rs at robertsheridan.com>
> Cc: CONLAWPROF Prof list <CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>
> Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:08 pm
> Subject: Re: Cheap shots against Palin
>
>
> In the middle of a "war on terrorism" the possible would be
> Commander in Chief can be expected to have something to say, anything, about
> what the SCT itself has said on the topic. We don't need case names. We
> don't even need a Con Law profs understanding of the analysis. How about
> "you know Katie, in the midst of a war on terrorism, deference to the
> executive is important, and I would hope that the SCT would . . . . "
> Or how about this, "you know Katie, more important than cases where the
> SCT went wrong, are the case where they got it right, like . . . (insert case of
> choice, and if the mind goes blank throw out Brown v. Board for good measure.
> Maybe she's heard of that one?)
> I agree that she is now getting thrown under the bus for what were colossal
> strategic blunders on the part of McCain and his managers. And that's where
> the focus should be. But I can't agree that asking a potential VP to name
> one, any, case besides Roe falls under the category of 'gotcha'
> journalism.
>
> Kathleen A. Bergin
> Associate Professor of Law
> South Texas College of Law
> 1303 San Jacinto Street
> Houston, TX 77002
> p: 713-646-1829
> f: 713-646-1766
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Sheridan <rs at robertsheridan.com>
> Date: Friday, November 7, 2008 10:02 am
> Subject: Cheap shots against Palin
> To: CONLAWPROF Prof list <CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>
>
> > NPR this morning broadcast a clip from the Katie Couric ambush
> > interview of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (who was meeting diplomats at
> > the
> > U.N. as part of her positioning process as McCain's VP choice) in
> > which the question asked was (not an exact quote) in essence:
> > Apart
> > from Roe v. Wade, what Supreme Court decisions do you disagree
> > with?
> > and she was stuck for an answer.
> >
> > Earlier in this list we kicked around whether she should be
> > briefed on
> > such arcana as, for example, who the president of Turkmenistan
> > was.
> > One position was that she should be briefed on arcana and another
> > was
> > that there was no time and that she should turn the question on
> > the
> > questioner in order to duck it since it was an unfair "gotcha"
> > question.
> > It was likely that Sarah from Alaska (as she referenced herself
> > the
> > other day) didn't know who the Turkmen strongman was. Yet, she
> > was
> > running for an office where such knowledge was of potentially
> > considerable importance. She could be briefed when it became
> > important, however. This is one of the reasons we have a State
> > Department which, I presume, has a Turkmenistan desk, or at least
> > a
> > stool, along and a guy who sits on it and can do the briefing.
> >
> > As I recall from the news, John Roberts, when a White House
> > staffer,
> > helped brief Pres. Reagan's nominee to the Court, one Sandra Day
> > O'Connor, on what she needed to know in the way of Supreme Court
> > decisions she was expected to know and either agree or disagree
> > with
> > before her Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. When he was
> > nominated
> > to be Chief Justice, he received briefings, despite years of
> > Supreme
> > Court practice under his belt.
> >
> > Yet here we have Sarah Palin being mocked, implicitly when not
> > explicitly, for ignorance, which is not the same as stupidity.
> >
> > And some of the people who do the mocking among the general public
> > and
> > the chattering class, probably have no better idea of Conlaw than
> > does
> > Katie Couric or me, for that matter. I'd hate to be put to a test
> > on
> > all of the many cases I'm unfamiliar with, or who the president of
> > any
> > country apart from the current big three is. They change, you
> > know.
> > One day it's Chirac and the next it's Sarkozy. And suddenly
> it's
> > no
> > longer Putin but Medvedev, unless you still count Putin, which may
> > be
> > no mistake.
> >
> > The fault, if it was a fault, was that McCain selected a person
> > not
> > likely to have been well-briefed in advance as to such things.
> > The
> > fault was his, knowing full well that candidates for the White
> > House
> > must be perfectly knowledgeable about everything or suffer being
> > mocked, not hers. She's a normal human being who rose to become
> > the
> > elected mayor and governor of her state, which makes her
> > extraordinary. It's also far more than I can claim despite some
> > familiarity with Supreme Court gotcha questions. This might make
> > me
> > feel superior, but that's a false and prideful position to have,
> > not
> > that there's any lack here.
> >
> > As noted in other threads, there are no intellectual
> > qualifications
> > for these high offices. The public is supposed to be able to
> > figure
> > out how well qualified their choices are. Yet the public is being
> >
> > asked by the national media to disqualify candidates who fail the
> > "gotch" test of ambush journalism. Palin was in N.Y. on one
> > matter
> > when asked in a hallway by a nationally known media personality (a
> >
> > celebrity journalist who negotiates for $15 million in salary per
> > annum) bearing a microphone and backed by a TV camera to speak on
> > a
> > subject that was currently off-topic and not briefed. The
> > president
> > of the United States doesn't appear before the cameras for a press
> >
> > conference w/o being briefed by the world's greatest experts of
> > the
> > moment. The fault was the campaign's for letting her get ambushed
> >
> > like that. Who had her back? No one.
> >
> > It's not as though Couric didn't know about Palin's lack of
> > exposure.
> > That was the whole point, to make a monkey out of her for her
> > presumed
> > lack of sophistication.
> >
> > Was this wonderful journalism, exposing Palin's lack of briefing,
> > or
> > knowlege, or familiarity with what participants on this list
> > regard as
> > important, or was it partisanship? Or a service in exposing
> > McCain's
> > judgment as reflected in a choice of running mate who was weak in
> > important areas?
> >
> > The thing that seems to be missing in the Couric interview is any
> > clear indication as to why Palin should be expected to know Conlaw
> > w/o
> > having taken the course, where it is nowhere written that she was
> > required to take the course, any more than McCain took the course,
> >
> > beyond his OJT.
> >
> > Not a great moment in journalism, Couric.
> >
> > rs
> > sfls
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games while you browse
> with the Games Toolbar - Download Now!
> <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212904500x1200818240/aol?redir=http://toolbar.aol.com/games/download.html?ncid=emlweusdown00000004>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list