Dahlia Lithwick and Tony Mauro

Reader Comments from The Fray:

[Note from the Fray Editor: There was an early argument in The Fray: is this Breakfast Table funny and lighthearted, or juvenile and disrespectful? Read and then comment. There was much discussion of Tony Mauro's controversial article ("and some people wonder why the public hates lawyers and journalists"), both for and against. John N asked for a little more substance and less fluff ("Heavy Equipment Operator" had obviously been reading about the cases and asked for "more substances and less work".) There was also interest in televising the Supreme Court, and the Court as an election issue. And the Fray questions for Dahlia and Tony continue:]


[Reaction to Monday's entry:]


I wonder if Dahlia would care to make some predictions for this term. How many questions will Justice Thomas ask? I predict a more engaging term for him and think he'll ask a whopping two questions--three if they take a case that deals with pornography. And for Tony, I wonder if you could tell me what is a bigger honor for a journalist--getting called "Mauronic" by Scalia or a "major league a------" by Dubya?

--Supreme Watcher

(To reply, click here.)


Tony & Dahlia, I'd love to have something clarified. In an MSNBC article about the new session and which cases would & would not be heard, this was listed:

"• Rejected the appeal of a married couple who say they were sexually harassed at work by the same supervisor, letting stand a ruling that said a key federal law does not apply to bisexuals who harass others."

Which federal law are they talking about, and are they really saying (as it would appear) that according to federal law, bisexuals cannot be prosecuted for sexual harassment? What does this mean in terms of precedent? Are we likely to see a wave of changes to harassment laws as a result? (Thinking about getting out my little black book ....)

--Damiana

(To reply, click here.)
[Tony Mauro looked at this on Tuesday. The answers from The Fray--try this from "Supreme Watcher"--were also interesting, as were Damiana's further thoughts on the subject.]


[Reaction to Tuesday's entry:]


I've been a lawyer for 26 years and Scalia represents the worst kind of judicial temperament: the Bully (or even worse, the thin-skinned Bully). He's clothed with all the authority and power that the Constitution gives him and he uses it to browbeat and disparage those attorneys who appear before him. Those lawyers aren't slow or dumb--they wouldn't be where they are if they were--and Scalia knows he can get off his pretentious zingers at their expense because they can't fight back (Just once I'd like to see a lawyer respond to one of Scalia's comments with the same sarcasm and lack of respect--I'd even be willing to contribute to that lawyer's defense costs). When a journalist takes Scalia to task, Scalia the Bully resorts to juvenile name-calling. Scalia's conduct is just as offensive on the Supreme Court as it was on the kindergarten playground.

--Brian Seibel

(To reply, click here.)


Dahlia, You may be right that less that 10% of the electorate consider upcoming Court vacancies to be a campaign issue, but some do. I care about the issue, but I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Dem, so it won't change my vote. I was talking with my brother-in-law this weekend, though, and he cited the potential vacancies as the single issue driving him to vote for Gore. He has generally voted GOP in his life, but is pro-choice and pro-environment, and feels that given the GOP history of nominating ideologues like Scalia and Thomas, that they can't be trusted with the responsibility. So there are a few people who consider this to be an issue.

While we're on the subject, could you handicap the Chief Justice nomination in the event that Rehnquist retires before 2004? The brother-in-law and I thought the best nominees are O'Connor if Bush is elected, and Souter if Gore is elected. Care to hazard a guess?

--Al V

(To reply, click here.)
[And there is a question about possible appointees here.]


Since Justice Souter said the day cameras come into the courtroom it was going to be over his dead body, does that mean he's going to change his lunch to double bacon cheeseburgers, fries and ho hos if Congress does enact the proposed law to televise? Or, will the court simply say: not enough legislative record, or: no evidence of economic impact, or: Congress has misread the scope of their power, or: this looks like payback to us so we're going to do what people do to some of our rulings and simply ignore it?

--T.Cheney

(To reply, click here.)


I would watch televised Supreme Court arguments, but then I'm a Washington lawyer. The fact of the matter is that the only thing the Supreme Court does of any public importance is issue its final written opinions. The oral arguments are just inside baseball for Dahlia, Tony, me and the like.

--Richard Riley

(To reply, click here.)