Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Dahlia Lithwick
[name deleted] sends this funny take on Dahlia. Some parts, per his request have been redacted, but on the whole it is classic DC. Quick Disclaimer - By posting this, I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with DC. I just think his writing can be fun to read. Enjoy!

How many of you have read SLS grad Dahlia Lithwick's regular column on Slate?Well, she's movin up in world, and is temporarily filling in at the moment for Maureen Dowd at NYT and boy, does Dahlia need to do some fact checking. Her column last Sunday, entitled "Activist, Schmactivist", was a frothing diatribe against Bush's "re-activist" judges (she invented this cutesy term for judges who just don't get that the Constitution is a living, breathing, politically protean blob of legal protoplasm that can and should be remoulded by the Yale Law School every semester depending of course on what Bruce Ackerman had for breakfast). Doesn't the English language already have the perfectly good word "reactionary"? Is "reactionary" not capacious enough even for Lithwick's pen?

After slamming Justices Scalia and Thomas, Judges Owen, Brown, she comes to every liberal's favorite CROSSBURNIN' BORN-AGAIN REDNECK TORMENTOR OF COLORED FOLK and recent recess apt-ee to the 11th circuit, Bill Pryor, whom she accuses of "expend[ing] energy as attorney general of Alabama to support Judge Roy Moore in his quest to chisel the Ten Commandments directly into the wall between church and state."

First, this damned phrase of Jefferson's, "wall between church and state," has been so promiscuously misinterpreted and pimped out by secularists that I don't know where to begin--but I don't want to weigh your inboxes down anymore than necessary, so I'll save this discussion for another time (doesn't even Rehnquist use in his Locke v. Davey opinion last term?!)

More importantly, however, Lithwick's version of the Alabama Supreme Court Commandments dust-up so fundamentally mischaracterizes Pryor's actions as AG that it verges on a lie, or at least a misrepresentation born of gross journalistic incompetence. WTF does "EXPENDED ENERGY" mean anyway? Very slippery language, Dahlia; looks like calculated bowdlerization to me.

Fact is Pryor absolutely and categorically enforced the federal court ruling mandating removal of the monument: Pryor, a Republican, has said he believes the Ten Commandments display was constitutional, but he said Thursday federal court orders must be obeyed.
(CNN, Nov. 14 2003)

"At the end of the day, when the courts resolve those controversies, we respect their decision," he [Pryor] said. "That does not mean that we always agree with their decision." Pryor, a Republican who has been nominated for a federal judgeship, applauded the justices' order. "The rule of law means that no person, including the chief justice of Alabama [i.e., Moore], is above the law," he said.
(CNN, Aug. 23 2003)

Summary: Judge Pryor enforces the law, unlike our friend Mayor Gavin "civil disobedience" Newsome. (Sorry, forgot, breaking the law to further the gay agenda is a NOBLE deed, whereas breaking the law to further a fundamentalist Christian agenda is UNAMERICAN.)

So, I suppose if "EXPEND ENERGY" is a phrase meaning "an individual's personal eliefs about a legal controversy before him/her IN NO WAY AFFECT OR INTERFERE WITH HIS/HER CAPACITY TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND DO HIS/HER JOB IN AN IMPARTIAL MANNER", then Judge Pryor did certainly "expend energy" in support of Moore, as Dahlia writes. What a magical phrase! So much meaning in just two modest words!

Dahlia, you're obviously not ready for the big leagues.
Stick to writing about dildos on Slate.

No comments: