Bench Memos

NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.

Re: Loving and Hating Bush v. Gore


Matt has exposed the major folly in Adam Cohen’s typically vacuous op-ed in today’s New York Times.  I will limit myself to a minor point, a point so minor that it would hardly be worth noting, except that it illustrates that the “specialist in speciousness,” as Matt labels Cohen, can’t be trusted on small matters either. 


According to Cohen, “when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about [Bush v. Gore] at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, ‘Come on, get over it.’”  Scalia “snapped”?  In fact, as I pointed out as part of a previous series of posts (see also here, here, here, and here) responding to a lengthy hit piece that Cohen wrote on Scalia, Scalia supported his remark by pointing out that “this was an election ago now,” by referring to the comprehensive review by a consortium of newspapers (including the New York Times) establishing that Bush would have won under any plausible recount, and by noting that seven justices had agreed that there was an Equal Protection violation.  Some snap.


Tags: Whelan


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review