Category Archives: Major Print Outlets

Stuart Taylor, Jr.’s media appearances in print publications.

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.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – Ambivalence In the Pursuit of Judicial Modesty Is No Vice

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

It’s no secret that the next President could alter the ideological balance on the Supreme Court. The Court is so closely divided that the next appointment or two could produce a shift either to the liberal or to the conservative side. What’s less widely appreciated is that the current makeup of the Court so closely mirrors the nation’s divisions, with those at the center often striking so delicate a balance, that a dramatic shift in either direction would be quite unsettling for the body politic. With the Justices split 5-4 on affirmative action, racial gerrymandering, church-state relations, and states’ rights, a one-vote switch could, for example, virtually wipe out governmental use of racial preferences–or ensconce them more firmly than ever before. Roe vs. Wade hangs by two votes. And the next President’s appointments (if any) could make the Court far more conservative–or more liberal–on gay rights, the "right to die," campaign finance restrictions, feminist causes, and other ideologically charged issues. But thoughtful liberals should hesitate to wish for a Court bent on sweeping away laws requiring that parents be notified when their children seek abortions, or junking the military’s restrictions on women in combat, or striking down the death penalty (again). And thoughtful conservatives should hesitate to wish for a majority bent on eradicating the racial preferences used by most elite universities (and other institutions), or reinstating prayer in public schools, or overruling Miranda vs. Arizona (as the current Court has been urged to do in a pending case). The reason is that popular government works best when Justices use their powers sparingly and seek to foster and inform rather than to pre-empt democratic debate on the great issues of the day, and when they respect their own precedents. Such restraint comes most naturally to Justices who can see merit in both liberal and conservative perspectives.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – Who’s Exploiting Racial Divisions Now?

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

Brazile…will not let the "white boys" win. And that’s not a description of "gender or race, it’s an attitude. A white-boy attitude is `I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind,’ " Brazile says. "They don’t see or think about it. It’s a culture." It is the sense of utter entitlement. And that she will not have. That is how Washington Post reporter Robin Givhan quoted Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s campaign manager, deep in a glowing Nov. 16 profile. Imagine the same statement–but with "white boys" changed to "black girls"–being made by George W. Bush’s campaign manager. It would have touched off a national sensation. Legions of Democrats would have demanded–and promptly received–apologies, but these would not have stilled the clamor. The campaign manager would have been banished from public life, perhaps forever. And Bush’s candidacy would have been severely damaged, with dozens of follow-up stories probing every corner of the Bush camp for other signs of infection by racism. So how did Donna Brazile’s little slur play? Well, the authors of two letters to the editor of The Post found it offensive. So did The New Republic, in a brief item (republished in The Washington Times): "Since when, we wonder, is the phrase `white-boy attitude’ not about gender or race?" So did The Providence Journal-Bulletin. And that’s about it: As of Dec. 1, I can find no other mention, in any publication, of Brazile’s comment. One reason for this, of course, is that "white boys" and other slurs directed at white males are habitually shrugged off, based on a double standard that is understandable in light of our history of racial oppression, but far too forgiving if we want a future of racial tolerance. This same double standard also helps explain why there is so little criticism of the many far more inflammatory comments made by leading liberal Democrats.

Posted on

Legal – How I Hit The Class Action Jackpot

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

As the lucky co-owner of a Toshiba laptop computer, I should be tickled pink: I apparently qualify for a cash rebate of $309.90. This thanks to an Oct. 29 settlement in which Toshiba agreed to spend at least $1 billion to end a class action lawsuit–the first of a wave now being filed against computer-makers–claiming that it has sold more than 5 million defective laptops in the United States since 1987. Once the settlement receives final judicial approval, owners of laptops purchased since March 5, 1998, can claim cash rebates ranging from $210.00 to $443.21. Both they and owners of older Toshiba computers will also get discount coupons of up to $225 for future purchases of Toshiba products.