Author Archives

Stuart Taylor, Jr.

Posted on

Opening Argument – The President’s Least- Favorite Nominee

by Stuart Taylor, Jr

National Journal

Bradley A. Smith is "unfit for the office," says Al Gore — so unfit that "this is the first time I’ve called for the defeat of a [Clinton] nominee." The President’s agreement to nominate Smith is "a betrayal of campaign finance reform," says Bill Bradley. Smith’s views are "extreme," and the nomination "reeks of the kind of backroom deal-making that turns Americans away from politics and government," says Common Cause. And even the nominator in chief says that Gore and Bradley "were right to condemn" Smith’s views (if not the nomination), because Smith "hates campaign finance reform."

At the center of this little storm is an earnest, articulate, libertarian, 41-year-old professor at Capital University Law School, in Columbus, Ohio. He was plucked from obscurity by Senate Republicans to fill one of three Republican slots on the six-member Federal Election Commission, because he is perhaps the most prolific scholarly critic of the wisdom and constitutionality of both current and proposed curbs on campaign contributions and spending.

Only the President can nominate people to sit on the FEC. But thanks to one of American government’s peculiar customs — enforced by the Senate leadership’s threat to hold the President’s judicial nominees hostage until Clinton gave them Smith — Clinton made the nomination on Feb. 9, ending many months of stalemate. Now Brad Smith is getting a taste of what nominees as diverse as Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Lani Guinier, and Zoe Baird have experienced: the hazards of becoming a symbol in one of Washington’s ideological wars.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – A Vote For Gay Marriage – But Not by Judicial Fiat

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

Vermont and its legislature are mired in furious debate over the state Supreme Court’s ruling two months ago that the legislature must "extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law," either by allowing same-sex marriages or by creating comprehensive "domestic partnership" rights.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – The Death Penalty: To Err Is Human

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

The death penalty is so politically correct these days that Hillary Rodham Clinton supports it. Her husband, the Democratic President, has championed curbs on death row appeals. So Illinois Gov. George Ryan’s Jan. 31 moratorium on all executions is an extraordinary event. Maybe even a turning point.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – Clinton’s Apprentice: How Much Does Honesty Matter?

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

On the issues, Bill Bradley and Al Gore do not differ very dramatically. On the character front, however, they present a clear but complicated contrast: Gore’s intelligence and energy are marred by a persistent habit of distorting the truth-including both his opponents’ records and his own-sometimes to the point of flat-out falsehood. Bradley, on the other hand, seems pretty honest, albeit flawed by an above-it-all sanctimoniousness that made it seem jarring when he shifted belatedly, and half-heartedly, into attack mode.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – An Elegant Mess Partially Reaffirmed

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

By the Court On the face of it, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on campaign finance, handed down early this week, was a routine reaffirmation of the status quo-the Justices’ 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo precedent, an exercise in constitutional baby-splitting that once seemed elegant to some of us but that has, in practice, made an awful mess of things. But the Jan. 24 ruling touched off noisy celebrations among self-styled campaign finance law reformers who detest the status quo. This was partly spin on their part, of course. But the decision did reflect subtle movement in the reformers’ direction by some Justices, at least three of whom openly invited tighter campaign finance restrictions.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – The Confederate Flag and the Cost of Pandering

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

The pandering by George W. Bush and John McCain to Republican reactionaries who want to keep the Confederate battle flag atop South Carolina’s Statehouse is especially disheartening for those of us who hope for the emergence of more-creditable Republican alternatives to the Democratic politics of racial grievance, preference, and "Sharptonism."

Posted on

Legal Affairs – Congress, The Court, And Violence Against Women

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

Can Congress authorize battered wives, rape victims, and other people harmed by gender-motivated crimes to file federal civil rights lawsuits against their assailants? That’s what Congress did in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994, and that’s the specific question on which the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Jan. 11 in United States vs. Morrison.

The broader issue is whether the justices should expand states’ rights by striking down the VAWA provision, despite congressional findings that a federal remedy is necessary to combat discrimination against victimized women in state justice systems and to enable such women to participate fully in the economic life of the nation and in the interstate commerce that Congress is empowered to protect.

This may be the biggest states’ rights case since 1992, when the justices began breathing new life into the federalist principle that the national government has limited powers and may not unduly encroach upon the domain of the states.

It’s an easy case for many liberals, who support VAWA, and for many conservatives, who would love to see it struck down. It is likely to be a hard case for the two centrist justices whose votes will almost certainly determine the outcome: Sandra Day O’Connor-whose passions include both states’ rights and women’s rights-and Anthony M. Kennedy.

It’s certainly a hard case for me. Part of me wants the court to strike down the statute as an unwarranted, largely symbolic exercise in political correctness that will do little for victims of violence and even less for interstate commerce. But judicial restraint argues for upholding the statute as a (barely) plausible exercise of Congress’s necessarily broad power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – The Media Should Beware of What It Embraces

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

The uncritical enthusiasm of most media organizations for abolishing "soft money" and restricting issue advertising by "special interests" prompts this thought: How would the networks and The New York Times like a law imposing strict limits on their own rights to editorialize about candidates? After all, if some of their favored proposals were to be enacted, the media would be the only major interest still enjoying unrestricted freedom of political speech.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – Outrages and Curmudgeonly Complaints From the Year Gone By

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

In the spirit of the season, and in the hope of a fresh start in the New Year-with malice toward none, with charity for all-I hereby purge myself of various vexations of the old year. Liberal Claptrap

• The Clintonization of Al Gore, who increasingly apes his boss in fictionalizing his life story and mangling the truth for political gain.

Gore-self-described inspiration for the novel Love Story, discoverer of Love Canal, co-creator of the Internet, and author of the earned income tax credit-has shifted from anointing Clinton "one of our greatest Presidents" to calling his conduct "inexcusable," to acting as if he barely knows the man, to re-embracing him at fund-raisers. Worse, Gore has systematically distorted Bill Bradley’s record and proposals. Example No. 1: Slamming Bradley’s cautious past support of experimental tuition vouchers as 18 years of votes to "siphon funds from public schools to private ones." Example No. 2: Warning both that Bradley’s health care proposal is a threat to leave "African-Americans and Latinos out in the cold" (because it would supplant Medicaid) and that it costs too much (because it seeks to cover so many who are now uninsured). The latter warning would ring truer had Gore not championed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s far more costly, far more grandiose plan in 1993.