Gotta love Laurence Tribe
Tribe, perhaps the leading scholar of constitutional law, has decided not to write the second volume of the current edition of his landmark constitutional law treatise (which I read in law school and still have on my shelf). He states:No treatise, in my sense of that term, can be true to this moment in our constitutional history -- to its conflicts, innovations and complexities.Constitutional law is so in flux, he feels that: At such potential turning points, and until more is known about the antithesis and about the dynamics of the battle ahead, attempting to proclaim a new synthesis would bespeak utter hubris were it not so manifestly quixotic.In reply, trusty getto states, Were I to spend the next 90 years trying to come up with that sentence, or one similarly obtuse, I am certain I could not.At any rate, Yale Law Professor, Jack Balkin is of the opinion, "When Larry Tribe says that a paradigm shift may be on the way, it is worth sitting up and taking notice." It is sooooo nice of this distinguished group of legal scholars to join the rest of us in reality (aka George Bush's ownership society). You can read the letter here. You can read the article about the letter on law.com here. |










As one of the five who voted in favor of the buyout package, I have no regrets.
This type of coverage is one of the unforeseen consequences of taking the position I took. I feel it's important to take both the bad with the good. Though I wish the reporting was more comprehensive, more fact based and less lazy, I favor accountability and take full responsibility for voting in favor of the non-disclosure clause. I also intend to abide by it.
11:10 AM
Oh yes. "Trusty Getto" favors full acountability and responsibility and pledges to keep the secrets from those who actually pay the freight...
Oh, puh-leeeze...this is why this public official discloses who he/she is, instead of hiding behind "trusty getto," right?
It's awfully hard to trust anybody who votes in favor of secrets, claims accountability, then hides their own identity, even on an Internet blog started by one who no doubt helped put him in office.
I think the public deserves better...but I'm sure they will decide.
Steve Wilson
WXYZ TV
1:23 PM
Whoa, boy. I didn't hide my identity. It's obvious. Think homonym. It'll come to you.
As for accountability, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Any time a board of seven individuals votes, even if it's unanimous, that vote represents seven different and often divergent opinions. It serves no purpose to revisit divisive issues and publicly debate them on the front page and on the TV unless the decision is to be revisited. This one's not.
Encouraging public officials to speak about why they did this or why they did that does not foster truth. It fosters "cover." Though I do my best to convey the truth when I speak, I am not naive enough to think everyone miraculously believes everything I say. I favor judging on the basis of actions, not words. People who don't know me can never truly know why I took a particular position, but they can certainly know how I voted and judge me on that basis. The decision in this case was the correct one, in my view, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
What Mr. Wilson left out of his report and his post is that his assistant called me, and we spoke on the phone. At no time did she ask me a single direct question concerning why I voted the way I did. At no time did she ask me what the rationale was behind the non-disclosure provision in the agreement. I think it is ironic that Mr. Wilson self-righteously invokes trust in the face of an overtly misleading interview style. Why not just ask the question? Trying to conceal something, Mr. Wilson?
I do agree with Mr. Wilson that the public will decide. I'm entirely comfortable with that.
4:46 PM