Category Archives: Major Print Outlets

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

Posted on

Legal Affairs – Seeking Diversity Without Racial Preferences

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

Champions of racially preferential affirmative action in university admissions have swung from denying (unconvincingly) that double standards exist to asserting (more plausibly) that colorblind admissions would produce dramatic and destructive drops in the numbers of black and Hispanic students at top campuses. The specter of such de facto resegregation of the most elite institutions has led many people (including me) who dislike or even detest racial preferences to shrink from calling for their abolition. But maybe it’s possible to dispense with the poison of racial preference, and expand opportunities for disadvantaged students of all races, without sacrificing diversity. That’s the promise of an intriguing plan unveiled by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Nov. 9. His "One Florida" initiative would abolish racial preferences in admissions but at the same time, the Governor predicts, increase black and Hispanic admissions to the 10 state university campuses. Bush would seek to do this by guaranteeing admission to the top 20 percent of students graduating from each Florida high school, provided that they have completed the required courses. The high schools would include the mostly black and Hispanic schools that rank lowest in the state in average SAT scores and other measures of academic skills. The state would also continue to give special consideration on an individualized, race-neutral basis to applicants who have shown promise in overcoming adversity. Bush’s "Talented 20" plan appears inspired, in part, by efforts in Texas and California to maintain diversity after racial preferences were abolished by court order (in Texas) and by ballot initiative (in California). A 1997 Texas law requires the flagship campus at the University of Texas to admit the top 10 percent of each high school class. Like the Texas and California efforts, the Florida initiative would reward the hard work of the best students of all races at even the weakest schools.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – The Mayor, The Art Museum, and The Freedom Of Speech

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

As one who doesn’t much like Catholic-bashing "art," and doesn’t dig pigs and sharks suspended in formaldehyde, and doesn’t want taxpayers dragooned into subsidizing whatever in-your-face, sensationalistic stuff titillates the artsy set, and would love to see Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Senate campaign go the way of her Whitewater land deal, it pains me to say this: New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani is a menace to the freedom of speech. He mauled the First Amendment quite badly when he cut off the long-standing city subsidy that covers a third of the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s operating budget, and sought to evict the museum and its 1.5 million art objects from the city-owned building it has occupied for more than 100 years. Giuliani’s stated reason was the museum’s refusal to cave in to his 11th-hour demand that it cancel an exhibition titled Sensation–or at least take down a painting of the Virgin Mary adorned with elephant dung and surrounded by tiny pornographic pictures of body parts. The mayor says he considers these works "sick," "disgusting," sacrilegious, and insulting to Roman Catholics. Even if the mayor is right about the art, he is wrong about the law. A U.S. District Court judge, Nina Gershon, was entirely persuasive in calling a halt to Giuliani’s jihad. This she did in a Nov. 1 preliminary injunction issued on the ground that the city’s punitive measures violate the First Amendment. Indeed, the mayor’s campaign to bludgeon the museum’s board of trustees into submission exudes "a thuggish quality that sets all sorts of constitutional bells ringing," as Floyd Abrams, who represents the museum in its lawsuit against the city, said in an interview. Worse, Giuliani’s crusade comes at a time when Republicans have a golden opportunity to occupy the high ground in the perennial battle between the forces of free speech and the forces of censorship.

Posted on

Opening Argument – All the President’s Pardons: The Real Scandal

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel." –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 74 The fundamental problem with President Clinton’s use of his clemency power has been obscured by the uproar over his decision to free 11 Puerto Rican nationalists who were once involved in crimes related to a campaign of terrorist bombings. The problem is not that Clinton has been too generous in showing mercy. It is that (putting aside the Puerto Rican nationalists) he has been too stingy–stingier than any other President in the past century, perhaps in history. Clinton has done nothing for the legions of nonviolent federal prisoners who are serving long sentences, who pose no threat to society, and who have sought clemency by the hundreds, if not thousands. Many seem far more deserving of mercy than the Puerto Rican nationalists. While the Puerto Ricans certainly had long prison terms, they were deemed dangerous by the FBI, and they never expressed the kind of remorse that is usually considered a prerequisite for clemency. Before releasing the 11 in September, Clinton had awarded early release to a grand total of three federal prisoners. He had also pardoned 108 federal convicts who had finished serving their time. This total of 111 clemency grants (before the Puerto Rican nationalists)–out of 3,229 requests–amounted to a ratio of 1-to-29, or 3.4 percent. That’s the lowest percentage granted by any President since the government started keeping clemency statistics in 1900. This track record lends force to the charges that Clinton’s sudden sympathy for the Puerto Rican nationalists was spurred by intense lobbying by Hispanic officials and activists, more than by considerations of justice, mercy, or the national good.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – Should the Supreme Court Dump the Miranda Rules?

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

Quietly ticking away in the files of the Supreme Court is a time bomb that seems likely to explode into controversy in the next few weeks–and rock Congress, the Clinton Administration, and the Court itself. The time bomb is Charles T. Dickerson vs. U.S., a petition from a bank-robbery defendant for review of an extraordinary ruling by the U.S.

Posted on

Opening Argument – The Shame Of the Ronnie White Vote

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

The Democratic spin is that the Republican Senate’s Oct. 5 party-line vote, 54-45, to reject Ronnie L. White’s nomination for a U.S. District Court seat in Missouri was tinged with racism. At the very least, as President Clinton put it, the vote adds "credence to the perceptions that they treat minority and women judicial nominees unfairly and unequally." The Republican spin is, not surprisingly, quite different. In the words of White’s main critic, Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., White’s record as a Missouri Supreme Court judge is "pro-criminal and activist," and exudes "a serious bias against…the death penalty," even "a tremendous bent toward criminal activity." Indeed, said Sen.

Posted on

Opening Argument – When Abortion Laws Defy Common Sense

by Stuart Taylor, Jr

National Journal

Any parent who has rejoiced at seeing a sonogram showing the image of a second-trimester fetus knows how much it looks like a baby. And any parent who has seen a baby blossom into a vibrant teenage girl can imagine the agony of hearing her plead for help in aborting a pregnancy that she had hidden for three months. But any parent who would know with certainty what to say to that teenage girl must be smarter than I am.

Under "partial-birth" abortion laws adopted by many states, twice passed by Congress, and twice vetoed by President Clinton, one option would apparently be illegal: the most common (by far), and probably the safest, form of second-trimester abortion. That’s the basis of three decisions issued on Sept. 24 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, striking down "partial-birth" abortion laws in Nebraska, Iowa, and Arkansas.

The unanimous 8th Circuit rulings — written by a Carter appointee and joined by two Reagan appointees — are the latest in a line of opinions joined by some 26 judges, including 11 Reagan and Bush appointees, suggesting that "partial-birth" abortion laws are unconstitutional. Four judges thus far have suggested the contrary.

Right-to-life advocates have sold much of the public, and many legislators, on the myth that "partial-birth" abortion laws would outlaw only an especially grisly (and rare) way of killing third-trimester fetuses on the verge of birth.

Posted on

Legal Affairs – Why It’s Getting Harder To Appoint Judges

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

It’s taking longer and longer–and getting harder and harder–to fill vacancies on the federal courts. Some new numbers tell part of the story: The average time for Senate action on judicial nominations rose from 38 days in 1977-78 (when both the presidency and the Senate majority were Democratic) to 144 days in 1987-88 (when a Republican President faced a Democratic Senate) and 201 days in 1997-98 (when a Democratic President faced a Republican Senate), according to a bipartisan group called Citizens for Independent Courts. The creeping partisan paralysis was illustrated on Sept. 21 by the strange spectacle of Senate Democrats filibustering one of President Clinton’s judicial nominees–Ted Stewart, a conservative Republican from Utah.

Posted on

Opening Argument – Blaming Janet Reno, For All The Wrong Reasons

by Stuart Taylor, Jr

National Journal

Janet Reno has not been a good Attorney General, in my view. But congressional Republicans keep attacking her so indiscriminately — and for the wrong reasons — that their demands for her head have a suspiciously partisan smell.

The current Republican brief against Reno stresses three main points:

1) The revelation last month that the FBI fired pyrotechnic tear gas grenades during its 1993 assault on the Branch Davidians at Waco — contrary to Reno’s repeated assurances that incendiaries were never used — shows her to be an incompetent, if not a cover-upper.

2) Reno has bungled the investigation into Chinese nuclear spying.

3) Her stubborn refusal to hand over to an independent counsel the investigation into her boss’s 1996 campaign finance scandals was a politically motivated effort to curry favor with the White House.

In fact, Reno’s conduct on these specific fronts is quite defensible, if not always persuasively defended.

Waco. For six years, Reno and her aides assured Congress and the public that the FBI had not used incendiary devices on April 19, 1993, when FBI agents in armored vehicles punched holes and pumped tear gas into the Branch Davidians’ compound, beginning a chain of events that ended with the incineration of about 80 people, including 25 children.

After years of denials, the FBI has been forced to admit that it did fire pyrotechnic tear gas grenades that morning at a concrete bunker 40 yards in front of the wooden compound. While there’s no reason to think that these grenades started the fire — which occurred four hours later — the new evidence raises the possibility of a broader cover-up inside the FBI.

Posted on

Opening Argument – How Campaign Finance Reform Could Happen. Really

by Stuart Taylor, Jr

National Journal

With campaign finance reform headed for the House floor in the next few days — and the Senate floor next month — the likeliest outcome is another dreary partisan stalemate.

One obstacle is the overblown claim by conservative Republicans (and some others) that the proposed reforms would violate the First Amendment. Another is the secret urge of some Democratic incumbents — who pose as reformers — to scuttle any bill that would abolish the flood of "soft money" they have tapped so successfully.

Still, there is a chance that a package of moderate reforms can be cobbled together and enacted. It would probably need three main elements to be both politically viable and worthy of the "reform" label: 1) abolition of the huge soft-money contributions that corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals make to political parties, and that emit such a strong stench of corruption (or at least influence-peddling); 2) a ban on the use of corporate or labor union money to finance so-called "issue advertisements" that support or attack federal candidates within 60 days of an election; and 3) an increase in the inflation-ravaged caps on individual contributions of "hard money," which are the lifeblood of both candidates and parties.

The bill at center stage in the House, sponsored by Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Martin T. Meehan, D-Mass., contains the first two of these elements, plus some excess baggage. It passed the House in August 1998 by a vote of 252-179, and it seems fairly likely to pass again.

Posted on

Opening Argument – A Vote for Choice–And for Diversity

by Stuart Taylor, Jr

National Journal

No, this isn’t about abortion. Or affirmative action. It’s about saving some poor inner-city kids from their dreadful public schools by using tax dollars to give them the option of escaping to better private schools, including religious ones.

Specifically, it’s about whether such tuition "voucher" programs are either 1) an unconstitutional "establishment of religion," as U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. of Cleveland suggested on Aug. 24; or 2) a threat to American educational ideals, to the public schools, and to poor children themselves, as President Clinton and many liberals argue.

Judge Oliver, a Clinton appointee, issued a preliminary injunction suspending a voucher program in Cleveland that pays up to $2,250 in tuition costs for low-income elementary school children. Acting on the day before many schools started their fall term, Oliver said the program was probably unconstitutional because more than 80 percent of the money goes to religious schools.

The most moving response was that of Maria Silaghi, a 34- year-old Cleveland house cleaner who is fearful that her 10-year- old son, Anthony, might have to leave his Roman Catholic grammar school:

"Please don’t take this away from us," Silaghi told The New York Times on Aug. 25. "My son needs this. . . I can’t afford to move to the suburbs. . . I’ll work 10 jobs before I send him to the public schools."

On Aug. 27, amid a public outcry, Judge Oliver allowed the program to continue during the first semester for 3,200 students who had received vouchers last year. But he blocked vouchers for 600 to 800 new enrollees, mostly 5-year-olds. And he indicated that he would probably strike the entire program down for good, after a trial in December.