BookRix

Sweet :)

San Francisco, CA

Linda Greenhouse obtained the transcript, read it several times, and annotated
it, before writing this column. I hope readers appreciate how rare that is in
our media.

I cannot recall even one case of which I had personal knowledge in which media
reports were more than remotely connected to the reality in the courtroom, or
the issues as presented to judge and jury. Non-lawyers sat in the audience for
an hour or so, talked to lawyers who were doing PR duty, and then wrote what
they misunderstood of that elephant.

I am grateful for Ms. Greenhouse.

It is with that respect that I point out she has cleverly put her thumb on the
scale, and that of the NYT and its readers' interest, not of our
understanding, but of the reality of the case.

The Court handles ""political questions"" very differently from other
questions. It shows careful extreme deference. It does not leap joyfully into
the political fray, because it is long settled that its role is apart from
that fray, above it and after it, to keep it to the Constitution and other
rules of the fray.

Bush v Gore was an example of a notable failure to follow that principle. The
Court has been attacked for that, rightly so, and strongly. It has damaged the
Court that it so abused it role.

Now Ms. Greenhouse calls out loud and clear, ""Don't do that again."" That is
why it is important that she puts the focus here on ""political question.""
Bravo. Again.

------
Video: https://moxox.com
Music: https://muxiv.com
AV: http://yofuk.com