The Supreme Court and the Libby Case -- A Dialogue:
Two lawyers, one very liberal and the other very conservative, meet over a beer to chat about recent legal stories in the news. . . .
Lib: I've been thinking a lot about the new Supreme Court. Those new Justices are totally political — they vote the conservative way every time. I'm just glad the more liberal justices kept opposing their efforts.
Con: Funny, I've been thinking about the Libby case. The case against Libby was totally political. I'm just glad President Bush undid some of the damage.
Lib: Do you really think the case against Libby was political? What's your basis for saying that?
Con: Wait, you first. You said that the two new Justices are totally political. What's your basis for saying that?
Lib: Just look at how they voted. Alito and Roberts were on the conservative side of all those 5-4 decisions. Do you think that was a coincidence?
Con: I don't think it was a coincidence — Alito and Roberts are conservatives, so it's not too surprising. But isn't it a pretty far step to go from saying that Alito and Roberts are conservatives to saying that their decisions were purely political? Don't you have to look closely at the merits of each case to see which side is more persuasive?
Lib: Stop being an apologist. It's not really so hard. Any Justice who votes so consistently for one side in ideological cases is obviously just being political.
Con: You mean like Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg? Each and every one of them voted for the liberal side in every single one of those ideologically divided cases. Does that mean their decisions were purely political, too?
Lib: Hmm, let me think about that. No, that's different. The Supreme Court is about helping the little guy against the powerful. The liberal Justices are following in that great tradition.
Con: I think the Supreme Court is about the law, actually. Sometimes the law favors the little guy and sometimes it favors the powerful. But when you say that "the Supreme Court is about helping the little guy," you're just pretending that decisions matching your policy views are somehow fundamental constitutional truth.
Lib: Well, it's certainly the role I think the Supreme Court should have.
Con: But isn't that just your politics speaking? You're a liberal because you think the government should help the little guy. So you embrace judicial decisions that reflect that view as being "correct." On the other hand, instead of looking at the facts and law of each case, you just dismiss judicial decisions that clash with your policy views as "purely political." It validates your worldview, but it doesn't really add anything.
Lib: Let's move on to the Libby case. Why do you think it was political?
Con: Oh, please. The Libby case was purely political from the beginning. Liberals tried to use it to indict Cheney and Rove over the Iraq war in an effort to cripple the Bush Administration. Fitzgerald was an overzealous prosecutor who was trying to do their bidding. He obviously was acting politically against the Bush Administration.
Lib: Do you have any proof that Fitzgerald had any political motives?
Con: I don't need proof. Just look at what he did. I can't think of any other explanation.
Lib: But isn't this the same reasoning you found so objectionable a minute ago? When I thought Alito and Roberts were being purely political based on the outcomes they reached, you objected that I was just saying that because it validated my worldview. And yet now you say that Fitzgerald was just being political because of the positions he took. Aren't you the one trying to validate your worldview now?
Con: Stop playing "gotcha." I know politics masquerading as law when I see it. And I see it with the Libby prosecution.
Lib: Ah, but as a wise man said not long ago, "isn't that just your politics speaking?" You support the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration. The Libby prosecution threatened the Administration and put some pretty unflattering attention on the White House and the road to the war. So instead of looking at the facts and law of the criminal case, you just dismiss it as "purely political." It validates your worldview, but it doesn't really add anything.
Lib: I've been thinking a lot about the new Supreme Court. Those new Justices are totally political — they vote the conservative way every time. I'm just glad the more liberal justices kept opposing their efforts.
Con: Funny, I've been thinking about the Libby case. The case against Libby was totally political. I'm just glad President Bush undid some of the damage.
Lib: Do you really think the case against Libby was political? What's your basis for saying that?
Con: Wait, you first. You said that the two new Justices are totally political. What's your basis for saying that?
Lib: Just look at how they voted. Alito and Roberts were on the conservative side of all those 5-4 decisions. Do you think that was a coincidence?
Con: I don't think it was a coincidence — Alito and Roberts are conservatives, so it's not too surprising. But isn't it a pretty far step to go from saying that Alito and Roberts are conservatives to saying that their decisions were purely political? Don't you have to look closely at the merits of each case to see which side is more persuasive?
Lib: Stop being an apologist. It's not really so hard. Any Justice who votes so consistently for one side in ideological cases is obviously just being political.
Con: You mean like Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg? Each and every one of them voted for the liberal side in every single one of those ideologically divided cases. Does that mean their decisions were purely political, too?
Lib: Hmm, let me think about that. No, that's different. The Supreme Court is about helping the little guy against the powerful. The liberal Justices are following in that great tradition.
Con: I think the Supreme Court is about the law, actually. Sometimes the law favors the little guy and sometimes it favors the powerful. But when you say that "the Supreme Court is about helping the little guy," you're just pretending that decisions matching your policy views are somehow fundamental constitutional truth.
Lib: Well, it's certainly the role I think the Supreme Court should have.
Con: But isn't that just your politics speaking? You're a liberal because you think the government should help the little guy. So you embrace judicial decisions that reflect that view as being "correct." On the other hand, instead of looking at the facts and law of each case, you just dismiss judicial decisions that clash with your policy views as "purely political." It validates your worldview, but it doesn't really add anything.
Lib: Let's move on to the Libby case. Why do you think it was political?
Con: Oh, please. The Libby case was purely political from the beginning. Liberals tried to use it to indict Cheney and Rove over the Iraq war in an effort to cripple the Bush Administration. Fitzgerald was an overzealous prosecutor who was trying to do their bidding. He obviously was acting politically against the Bush Administration.
Lib: Do you have any proof that Fitzgerald had any political motives?
Con: I don't need proof. Just look at what he did. I can't think of any other explanation.
Lib: But isn't this the same reasoning you found so objectionable a minute ago? When I thought Alito and Roberts were being purely political based on the outcomes they reached, you objected that I was just saying that because it validated my worldview. And yet now you say that Fitzgerald was just being political because of the positions he took. Aren't you the one trying to validate your worldview now?
Con: Stop playing "gotcha." I know politics masquerading as law when I see it. And I see it with the Libby prosecution.
Lib: Ah, but as a wise man said not long ago, "isn't that just your politics speaking?" You support the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration. The Libby prosecution threatened the Administration and put some pretty unflattering attention on the White House and the road to the war. So instead of looking at the facts and law of the criminal case, you just dismiss it as "purely political." It validates your worldview, but it doesn't really add anything.