Still, rereading Garrow’s LA Times article (Thank you Kent) raises some doubts about the book. Garrow writes that the book “showcases debatable opinions rather than thorough research or original reporting” and this appears to be true.

Also, Toobin’s reasoning or tendency to jump to simple or easy conclusions is troubling. He immediately assumed Scalia implied Thomas was “a nut” is a speech a couple years ago, which is not necessarily at all the case (see the Sep. 21 Round Up). Also, in response to Tom’s thoughtful post about the possible outcomes of some major cases this next term, Toobin said this: “The point remains that Kennedy is usually in the conservative camp, and I see no reason why that will change.” Tom’s speculation was much more exact and detailed that this general statement…

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-et-book18sep18,1,215389.story?coll=la-news-politics-supreme_court

Toobin’s account of Justice O’Connor’s retirement is very different from other recent writing on the subject (as was pointed out to him in reference to Greenburg’s new book).

This point’s highlighted by the problem that so far as we know, the only people in the room were Rehnquist and O’Connor — so there are only two possible sources for what happened and the Chief ain’t talking.

Warren Rudman flat out denies Souter even considered resigning after Bush v. Gore; Justice Breyer contradicts Toobin’s claim that the justices were anything but civil to each other in conference during the same case, and Toobin’s account of Justice O’Connor’s retirement is very different from other recent writing on the subject (as was pointed out to him in reference to Greenburg’s new book).

Thoughts?

In terms of the coming election, I doubt that any significant number of people who are “outraged” by Bush v. Gore are not already dead set against the Republican party for other reasons. On the other hand, the issues discussed in Tom’s post yesterday might tip a few people who are otherwise on the fence.

Taken in that context, Bush v. Gore is no more “an obsession of the angry Left” than Roe v. Wade is “an obsession of the angry Right.” For the respective sides, both cases represent a dark day in Supreme Court jurisprudence. Most neutral observers don’t consider either case an example of model judging. If conservatives are more animated about about Roe, it’s only because that case has ongoing vitality, whereas Bush v. Gore was basically a one-time event confined to its facts.

Actually, a Gallup poll taken seven months after Bush v. Gore and before 9/11 showed that the Court was already a tad higher in the public’s esteem than it was in a poll taken before the election.

Bush v. Gore is an obsession of the Angry Left. The American people as a whole did not see it as tarnishing the Court.

“Thomas did not ask a question – for the entire year!”

Clearly a compliment to exemplary and thorough briefing by the parties and amici…