In an article that may be only on Time’s website, reporter Massimo Calabresi (son of former Yale law school dean Guido Calabresi) examines the nomination of Yale law school dean Harold Koh entirely through his own distorted understanding of Republican party politics. On one side are big, bad Glenn Beck and other “activists” who “want to harness Beck’s populist appeal to stay on the offensive for a variety of causes.” On the other side are the “traditionalists,” the supposed “true conservatives,” who support Koh and “want to retrench around sober messages of lower taxes, smaller government, and American supremacy.” (Ah, yes, what better way to promote “American supremacy” than to support a radical transnationalist who opposes the very idea.)
In Calabresi’s mistelling, the charge that Koh wants to “subjugate the United States constitution to foreign law” is just “fairly standard ratings-chasing melodrama”—rather than a straightforward account of Koh’s own writings that none of his supporters has seriously contested. Ignoring my detailed account of Koh’s record, Calabresi finds noteworthy the fact that I “appeared on Beck’s program” (for a few minutes), and he sloppily portrays me as an “activist[]” “who opposes most U.S. treaty involvement.”
It’s not surprising that supporters of Koh—including, evidently, Calabresi himself—would ignore Koh’s radical transnationalist views and the countless opportunities that he would have to implement them as State Department legal adviser. Indeed, the real divide between Republicans who support Koh and those who don’t appears to be between those who haven’t bothered to acquaint themselves with Koh’s transnationalist views (and his apparent willingness to resort to deception to advance them) and those who have examined them.
I don’t mean to foreclose the possibility that a conservative who believes (as I do) that a president is entitled to considerable deference in his executive-branch picks could conclude that Koh should be confirmed. But anyone adopting that standard of deference can intelligently apply it only after seriously reviewing Koh’s record. Instead, some of Koh’s Republican supporters are misusing the standard of deference as an excuse not to take a serious look at Koh’s record—and their support for Koh has the foreseeable effect of discouraging the Senate from giving Koh the careful scrutiny he requires. So much for the public interest in being informed about who is exercising governmental power.
Calabresi can’t even get the simplest facts right: He states that “a committee vote on Koh’s controversial nomination [is] coming Tuesday” (i.e., tomorrow), but it’s the committee hearing, not the vote, that occurs tomorrow.