SCOTUSblog has posted copies of the Vanity Fair article on Bush v. Gore, in case you haven’t seen it. Part 1 here; Part 2 here.
Will Baude offers some interesting comments on the article over at Crescat Sententia. An excerpt:
Reading the VF article pushed me more closely to thinking that the decision was reached legitimately, by justices honestly trying to sort out the right answers to a mess of legal issues. I don’t think that’s the effect the author of the piece intended (unless the author is very very clever), but it’s partially the result of useless little jibes . . .
The authors attempt to defend their bias with the argument that it was mostly the liberal clerks who were willing to break their vows of confidentiality to speak to them: “…if this account may at times be lopsided, partisan, speculative, and incomplete, it’s by far the best and most informative we have.” But that apologia only justifies the bias in quotes and reported or guessed-at facts. It doesn’t provide any explanation for the article’s relentlessly partisan tone, bizarre mix of naivete and cynicism, and unconstructive and unsubstantiated jabs.
UPDATE: Rick Hasen adds some thoughts here.
Comments are closed.