Professorial Punditry Worthy Of A Mainstream Pundit

In this post just before Christmas I linked to Hugh Hewitt‘s delicious puncturing of the bubble of ignorance inside which Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter uttered his uninformed fulminations against President Bush’s “dictatorial” behavior. Alter admitted that he had not read the relevant cases.

Apparently even law professors somehow insinuate themselves into that same, Alter-nate reality bubble when they venture onto OpEd pages, giving Hugh Hewitt another opportunity to provide his valuable service, this time at the expense of UVa law professor Rosa Brooks, who has recently become a regular contributor to the Los Angeles Times, particularly her Dec. 30 column. (HatTip to InstaPundit)

HH: … let’s focus on, from the December 30th’s column, the paragraph, the NSA’s domestic surveillance program is not the only impeachable offense with which the president could be plausibly charged. That does imply you do believe it is an impeachable offense.

RB: Yeah, I think it is. I mean, I think on its…I think that that’s a separate question from whether he would in the end be found guilty and removed from office.

HH: Of course. Of course.

RB: But I think it seems to me that the NSA surveillance program on its face violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and…

HH: Now, you have read United States V. United States District Court, right?

RB: Uh, Hugh, you’re pushing me here.

HH: It’s…

RB: Refresh my memory.

….

RB: Well, you know, Hugh, I mean, you’ve got the case law at your fingertips, and I’m not going to challenge you on it, because I don’t…. You know, I’m not an expert on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the case law behind it. I don’t know. It would seem to me that on its face, it violates it. I think clearly there have been people making arguments that it does not. I’m prepared to say that’s one where, you know, close case. And I’d like to hear more arguments.

What a bully that Hugh Hewitt is, “pushing” a law professor to determine if she’d actually read any of the relevant cases underlying her published claim that President Bush’s NSA surveillance policy was an impeachable offense!

But at least Prof. Brooks is open-minded. She’d “like to hear more argument” on a charge she’s already made. Good thing she’s only a professor (or a pundit; it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference) and not a judge.

Say What? (2)

  1. The COLOSSUS OF RHODEY January 5, 2006 at 8:09 pm | | Reply

    Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

    This week’s winner is David Quinn of Wilmington who writes the following: Spying on U.S. citizens is a crime It is amazing how quickly George W. Bush is investigating who leaked that he was spying on U.S. citizens to the…

  2. actus January 6, 2006 at 7:59 am | | Reply

    “What a bully that Hugh Hewitt is, “pushing” a law professor to determine if she’d actually read any of the relevant cases underlying her published claim that President Bush’s NSA surveillance policy was an impeachable offense!”

    The Case was decided before FISA was passed. Very relevant indeed to whether FISA was violated. And didn´t it concern a 4th amendment issue, rather than a separation of powers one?

Say What?