A legal eagle and TWS friend, who wishes to remain anonymous, writes:
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate's top writer on legal issues, has an essay today complaining that Republicans are being too rough on Harold Koh (Obama's nominee to be the State Department's legal adviser).
Her specific criticism -- that Koh himself is not an advocate of Sharia law -- is perfectly fine. (Besides, it's not like there's a shortage of reasons for the Senate to oppose Koh.) But then she moves on to her larger point:
"Why am I bothered by this? This kind of vicious slash-and-burn character attack, the kind in which the nominee is attacked as a vicious hater of America, is hardly new. The little trick of upending Dean Koh's legal arguments and recharacterizing them as the nefarious plotting of Dr. Evil is a surprise to nobody at this point. But we can be bothered even if we're not surprised."
That's pretty rich, coming from Lithwick. For years, she's never hesitated to slur those with whom she disagrees. It took me less than 10 minutes to pull up some of these gems:
Lithwick on Chief Justice Roberts, in 2005: "[Roberts] seemingly finds arresting them for French-fry possession to be a cornerstone in good parent-child relations."
Lithwick on Justice Thomas, in 2008: "Thomas thinks that anyone who opposes him is a racist."
Lithwick on Senator Cornyn, two weeks ago: "Whether Cornyn's comments reflect blatant sexism on his part or some messianic new standard for legal seriousness I leave to you to decide."
There's no question that Obama's nominees should be evaluated on the substance of their record. But Lithwick's just about the last person who can credibly complain about "recharacterizing" the statements of others. Perhaps Lithwick would have been more effective if she had just asked Republicans, "please don't be another Lithwick."
