2 Comments

I was listening to NPR this afternoon and heard Ms. Lithwick’s “analysis” of the Seattle school case. Eitehr she didn’t bother to read the case, or she’s just a political hack masquerading as a journalist. Oops, my bad. Most journalists are hacks nowadays.

Lithwick writes

“So is that what the court needs today? More pragmatists? . . . I have come to believe that it definitely needs more women and people of highly divergent life and career experiences — and no, Harvard vs. Yale law schools is not ‘highly divergent.’ But is there a name for this thing we liberals want to see more of on the court? Something that isn’t merely the opposite of ‘mean’?”

On supposes that in Dahlia-land, the opposite of “mean” is “people who think exactly as I do.” Isn’t that the argumentative conceit? That if you disagree with Dahlia, not only are you wrong, but you are also (i) stupid and (ii) mean? Because if you weren’t you wouldn’t disagree, no?

I admit I usually enjoy Dahlia when she is writing when the court is in session, but then tune her out once it is over. She writes well when “reporting,” but loses it when opining. Instead of Slate, she seems better suited as, say, the judicial equivalent of Ana Marie Cox/Wonkette.