Jeffrey Toobin went to Harvard for his undergraduate degree, and afterwards he went to Harvard Law School. He then clerked for a Federal Judge, served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and then went on to be a "legal analyst" for CNN and the New Yorker.
He's a hack.
He's also a liberal and a member of the media. (But I repeat myself.)
This is not to be confused with dumb. I'm sure that Toobin is quite "smart". However, he is simply incapable of seeing the opposing point of view. Therefore, when he's on the wrong side of an issue, he either cannot or will not accept the reality, and therefore just keeps on trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Case in point, his recent column hack-job in the New Yorker's online blog.
In true hack-form, Toobin decided to write an article cheering on current Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to reject South Carolina's proposed law requiring voters to show a picture ID when voting. After going through the background of why the DOJ has to approve the law, Toobin begins by dismissing the idea that voter fraud occurs.
There is no significant voter-fraud problem in the United States. Rather, these laws are transparent attempts by Republican majorities to stifle and suppress the number of minorities and poor people (mostly Democrats) who go to the polls.
First, it sounds like Toobin is admitting there is a voter-fraud problem in the United States, but the amount of fraud we have is insignificant. Toobin is fine with the small amount of fraud that exists, and sees no problem with a little bit of fraud.
Also, the trouble with statistics about crimes, is that for a crime to become a statistic, the crime has to be detected. For instance, if John Wilkes Booth had successfully make Lincoln's death look like an accident, Lincoln's death goes down in the official records as an accidental death, not a presidential assassination. Not all criminal acts are detected. Accordingly, relying on statistics is questionable at best.
In the end, we know that political elections have high-stakes, and human nature tells us that some people will cheat to get what they want when the stakes are high enough. It's a fact of life.
However, having dismissed the idea of fraud and bad-faith on the part of any voters, Toobin then immediately comes to the conclusion that the people who are in favor of the ID requirement (about 75% of the American public) are racist bigots who are deliberately trying to keep black people from voting by passing this law in bad faith. Therefore, according to Toobin, everyone is an angel when deciding whether to commit voter-fraud or not, but everyone is also a devil by trying to deprive others of voting rights. (I'll take Double-Think for $400, Alex)
Toobin goes on, cheering for Holder to help define his legacy.
This is a chance for Holder to define his legacy as Attorney General—as something more than the guy who tried, and failed, to have Guantánamo Bay detainees tried in federal court in New York.
Newsflash: Holder's legacy will be having a DOJ program under his watch that deliberately funneled firearms to Mexican cartels, resulting in the death of American citizens.
Coming to the crescendo of his analysis hackery, having convinced himself that Voter ID laws are not simply promoted by racist bigots in bad faith, he says:
The laws are, quite literally, indefensible—so Holder ought to make the states that have them try to defend them.
Indefensible? Are you sure? Toobin: I know you're a hack, but since you're also a LAWYER, please allow me to call your attention to the case of Crawford v. Marion County. It was decided way back in 2010, so you may not recall it. In this case, the state of Indiana passed a law requiring voters to show a photo ID. I'll use small words to explain the Supreme Court's opinion to you, Jeff:
Official Permanent Press Summary of Crawford v. Marion County
Producing a photo ID is not very hard to do.
Toobin either is blissfully unaware of Crawford, (which I doubt) or he's deliberately (there's that word again) being dishonest about the law. The law is quite clearly "defensible", given that the Supreme Court of the United States "defended" the law. You may or may not agree with the ruling, but to say that it is "indefensible" is simply a misstatement of the law, and any decent lawyer would know better.
Toobin is certainly entitled to disagree with the Supreme Court's opinion in Crawford, but he certainly ought to at least acknowledge it's existence. His failure to do so makes him a hack.
No comments:
Post a Comment