Katyal had no right to write this piece, he obviously opposes Gorsuch as a nomination because of his being conservative. Katyal wrote nice things because he wants to win the cases that will be presented in front of Gorsuch and the other conservative justices.
2
Setting aside the variety of his anti-woman history, I think most of what you need to know about Gorsuch is that he is against voting rights.
We are in a disaster and the suppression of votes is gaining strength and power. If we want to live in a Democracy, we have to find a supermajority of votes because of all the cheating. It needs to stop.
Gorsuch is absolutely not the answer.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/02/01/supreme-court-nominee-thr...
The link might not work (subscriber). Here's the title:
"Supreme Court nominee threatens voter rights"
Thanks but no thanks for running articles from advocates as if they were news. This is a common practice and distorts and deceives
We are in a disaster and the suppression of votes is gaining strength and power. If we want to live in a Democracy, we have to find a supermajority of votes because of all the cheating. It needs to stop.
Gorsuch is absolutely not the answer.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/02/01/supreme-court-nominee-thr...
The link might not work (subscriber). Here's the title:
"Supreme Court nominee threatens voter rights"
Thanks but no thanks for running articles from advocates as if they were news. This is a common practice and distorts and deceives
6
Another instance of the New York Times trying to pull over the eyes of its readers and acting like it is our fault that we caught them at this game of cover-up.
Considering this, is it any wonder why those on the political right and so many citizens in this country feel they have a very valid point that main stream media outlets, like the New York Times, can never be trusted to tell the truth.
Considering this, is it any wonder why those on the political right and so many citizens in this country feel they have a very valid point that main stream media outlets, like the New York Times, can never be trusted to tell the truth.
Liz: With the level of weak excuses from Jim Dao, Katyal and yourself, what was the point in even bothering to address the matter? This reader is left with the impression there is no such thing at the NYT of acknowledging errors in judgments or the willingness to do better: What-the-heck has happened here? Please don't ever use the excuse of "Tight Deadlines" for doing a sloppy vetting job; it is mighty insulting to everyone who works a j-o-b with daily time constraints- often far more critical than this.
5
Why lately- are "things" being rushed to the detriment of omitting necessary disclosures? I don't typically find that to be the case in the Washington Post. Most MSM is castigating (rightly) the rush-job of the new president; We readers would like to see the same self-editing and checks from those in journalism; We don't need a rush-job-in getting information- we need unfettered information without the constant back peddling and nuanced explanations so often the case- lately.
3
"the process got rushed in this case." “'Editors do try to ask writers directly,'” [Dao] said. “'On tight deadlines — and the Katyal piece was done on tight deadline — the question doesn’t always get asked. So I don’t blame the writer or the editor in this case.'”
Another oops - Dao most certainly should blame the writer AND the editor and man up to take some of the blame himself. Being on tight deadline, an justification used far too often by the NYT, is simply not an excuse for sloppy journalism. The Times wants its readers to trust that the paper has done all the proper behind-the-scenes work. Under the circumstances, how can we?
Another oops - Dao most certainly should blame the writer AND the editor and man up to take some of the blame himself. Being on tight deadline, an justification used far too often by the NYT, is simply not an excuse for sloppy journalism. The Times wants its readers to trust that the paper has done all the proper behind-the-scenes work. Under the circumstances, how can we?
3
"The problem is that the piece did not note that Katyal is among the elite lawyers who argue before the high court."
Well, the story did mention that he was "acting solicitor general in the Obama Administration." As such, he argued the government position in the Supreme Court. In order to do so, I am willing to stipulate that he is admitted to the elite level Supreme Court Bar.
At what point do we make zero assumptions of Times readers and its Public Editor?
Yes, Katyal might have left the Obama Administration in order to do pro bono work for the poor (stifles a laugh), but routine compluance with disclosure rules would have revealed what he is up to currently.
But I do not expect a canny lawyer like Katyal to do the Times' job for it. I do expect Times line editors to ask the questions "required" to be asked of its contributors. And I definitely expect supervisory editors like Jim Dao to require that the editors he oversees do their jobs thoroughly and competently. THAT is where the failure lies.
Well, the story did mention that he was "acting solicitor general in the Obama Administration." As such, he argued the government position in the Supreme Court. In order to do so, I am willing to stipulate that he is admitted to the elite level Supreme Court Bar.
At what point do we make zero assumptions of Times readers and its Public Editor?
Yes, Katyal might have left the Obama Administration in order to do pro bono work for the poor (stifles a laugh), but routine compluance with disclosure rules would have revealed what he is up to currently.
But I do not expect a canny lawyer like Katyal to do the Times' job for it. I do expect Times line editors to ask the questions "required" to be asked of its contributors. And I definitely expect supervisory editors like Jim Dao to require that the editors he oversees do their jobs thoroughly and competently. THAT is where the failure lies.
4
Unforced error. Ms. Spayd.
Mr. Kaytal's response is both reasoned and reasonable.
As for those that feel betrayed? Is it the Times' position that it is necessary to protect people from being "betrayed" because their political viewpoint is sufficiently skewed as to not permit reasonable discourse?
The Times' audience is not the village idiot.
Mr. Kaytal's response is both reasoned and reasonable.
As for those that feel betrayed? Is it the Times' position that it is necessary to protect people from being "betrayed" because their political viewpoint is sufficiently skewed as to not permit reasonable discourse?
The Times' audience is not the village idiot.
2
Owl, is there an inference to be drawn that the Times did not open Katyal's piece to comments?
5
I have two yuge problems here.
"Jim Dao, the Op-Ed editor, said the editors had not been aware of Katyal’s cases before the court. Writers are required to disclose potential conflicts, he said, but the process got rushed in this case. “Editors do try to ask writers directly,” he said. “On tight deadlines — and the Katyal piece was done on tight deadline — the question doesn’t always get asked. So I don’t blame the writer or the editor in this case.”
When I reached out to Katyal, he said he had not received such a disclosure request and had not had a conversation about potential conflicts. He also thought it was obvious to The Times that as a lawyer whose practice often brings him to the Supreme Court, he would have a case before it."
I am just sick to death of Times' editors using deadline pressure as an excuse for sloppy practices that used to be beneath the Times, but are no longer. All the talk of the emphasis on digital, even from some of the same masthead denizens...Look, folks, the more the Times goes digital, the less is deadline pressure a credible excuse. That is to say, it never should be a credible excuse, but it has been trotted out repeatedly in responses to Spayd and her predecessors.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is now a hardy perennial: in Opinion, in the Book Review, T Magazine/doorstop, and freelancers employed by the Times. The NYT squeezes freelancers, but lets invitees do the honor system. HERE is the place for "extreme vetting."
"Jim Dao, the Op-Ed editor, said the editors had not been aware of Katyal’s cases before the court. Writers are required to disclose potential conflicts, he said, but the process got rushed in this case. “Editors do try to ask writers directly,” he said. “On tight deadlines — and the Katyal piece was done on tight deadline — the question doesn’t always get asked. So I don’t blame the writer or the editor in this case.”
When I reached out to Katyal, he said he had not received such a disclosure request and had not had a conversation about potential conflicts. He also thought it was obvious to The Times that as a lawyer whose practice often brings him to the Supreme Court, he would have a case before it."
I am just sick to death of Times' editors using deadline pressure as an excuse for sloppy practices that used to be beneath the Times, but are no longer. All the talk of the emphasis on digital, even from some of the same masthead denizens...Look, folks, the more the Times goes digital, the less is deadline pressure a credible excuse. That is to say, it never should be a credible excuse, but it has been trotted out repeatedly in responses to Spayd and her predecessors.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is now a hardy perennial: in Opinion, in the Book Review, T Magazine/doorstop, and freelancers employed by the Times. The NYT squeezes freelancers, but lets invitees do the honor system. HERE is the place for "extreme vetting."
8
I've written the public editor about the half truths and distortions regularly offered up by the Time's EB and opinion writers (too many examples to quote here) as well as guest writers of the liberal persuasion. Many of these writers have conflicts, present false news and false science, and all are highly partisan leftists who treat facts as minor conveniences to be cherry picked -- if there are any facts that support their narrative. If not, out right lies or innuendos will do.
Yet, in the first of her columns I've read that critiques the opinion pages, she goes after someone who supports a Trump nominee for the Supreme Court for failing to disclose that -- he argues before the supreme court.
Thinking that that is a conflict of interest is an insult to all the justices of the supreme court. Does Ms. Spayd really think that any justice, let alone an originalist would be swayed because someone endorsed him?
That's silly. And there is no evidence to support that notion. And it's silly to assume that an editorial in the Times would somehow make democrat senators act like adults and confirm the nomination without having a tantrum.
When the Times discloses all the conflicts of its staff editorial writers and guests -- all the books they are trying to hawk -- the political affiliations they have, in detail, I'll be more impressed with her concerns about disclosure here.
Yet, in the first of her columns I've read that critiques the opinion pages, she goes after someone who supports a Trump nominee for the Supreme Court for failing to disclose that -- he argues before the supreme court.
Thinking that that is a conflict of interest is an insult to all the justices of the supreme court. Does Ms. Spayd really think that any justice, let alone an originalist would be swayed because someone endorsed him?
That's silly. And there is no evidence to support that notion. And it's silly to assume that an editorial in the Times would somehow make democrat senators act like adults and confirm the nomination without having a tantrum.
When the Times discloses all the conflicts of its staff editorial writers and guests -- all the books they are trying to hawk -- the political affiliations they have, in detail, I'll be more impressed with her concerns about disclosure here.
1
Ralphie, did you miss this one, from just nine weeks ago?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/public-editor/facebook-jessica-lessin...
The exact same issue, raised just over two months ago. Nothing learned from the prior inquest by Spayd, which followed similar questions by her predecessor Margaret Sullivan concerning disclosure failures in the book review (more than one), the opinion section, and the T Magazine doorstop.
The Public Editor is tasked with examining questions of journalustic integrity. Repeated failure to perform the putatively required questioning of outside writers for potential conflicts of interest, or leaving all such disclosures to the honor system, as the Book Review appallingly does, is squarely within that arena.
The idea that you present that somehow an "originalist" would be less likely to be "swayed" by the blandishments of an opinion piece in the Times rather than any other justice is opinion on your part unmoored to any evidence. Would you care to present some? While you are at it, some substantiation for your claim about "false news and false science" would also be appreciated.
I have been told, more than once, that my efforts to get the Times to uphold its explicit standards, especially regarding anonymous sourcing, are "quixotic." I would suggest that your desire to steer the Times to a more conservative opinion section is even more so.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/public-editor/facebook-jessica-lessin...
The exact same issue, raised just over two months ago. Nothing learned from the prior inquest by Spayd, which followed similar questions by her predecessor Margaret Sullivan concerning disclosure failures in the book review (more than one), the opinion section, and the T Magazine doorstop.
The Public Editor is tasked with examining questions of journalustic integrity. Repeated failure to perform the putatively required questioning of outside writers for potential conflicts of interest, or leaving all such disclosures to the honor system, as the Book Review appallingly does, is squarely within that arena.
The idea that you present that somehow an "originalist" would be less likely to be "swayed" by the blandishments of an opinion piece in the Times rather than any other justice is opinion on your part unmoored to any evidence. Would you care to present some? While you are at it, some substantiation for your claim about "false news and false science" would also be appreciated.
I have been told, more than once, that my efforts to get the Times to uphold its explicit standards, especially regarding anonymous sourcing, are "quixotic." I would suggest that your desire to steer the Times to a more conservative opinion section is even more so.
3
Ralphie, how about disclosing your own interests. You argue against the truth and for the kleptocracy and climate lies regularly on these pages. You are dead wrong, and this is bad for children and other living things.
3
Public Editor Liz Spayd claims that she's "not suggesting Katyal is currying favor with a man who is almost certainly going to be on the court. I seriously doubt that he is."
In fact, that is exactly what Katyal is doing, and it is clear as daylight. A former Obama administration official claims that liberals should support this right-wing extremist? That's insane. And the only reason Katyal would write this is to curry favor with Gorsuch .
Further, Times editor Jim Dao claims that the oped was published without vetting for conflicts of interest due to being "rushed in this case." Why would he "rush" to publish this oped without vetting? I suspect it is because he was looking for supportive comments essays on Grouch, and that this essay filled Dao's desire narrative that Dao.
This column belies sloppy journalism by The Times, which has become all too common.
In fact, that is exactly what Katyal is doing, and it is clear as daylight. A former Obama administration official claims that liberals should support this right-wing extremist? That's insane. And the only reason Katyal would write this is to curry favor with Gorsuch .
Further, Times editor Jim Dao claims that the oped was published without vetting for conflicts of interest due to being "rushed in this case." Why would he "rush" to publish this oped without vetting? I suspect it is because he was looking for supportive comments essays on Grouch, and that this essay filled Dao's desire narrative that Dao.
This column belies sloppy journalism by The Times, which has become all too common.
6
This is much ado about nothing except political correctness. Mr. Katyal had the courage to speak out for a good man of differing political veiws, realizing that different political views are our country's greatest strength and the monotone of partisan political correctness are its' death knell. We need more people of conviction that believe in our democracy and far less of the johnny one note hackery that emanate from the same foul source at the NYT.
3
"On tight deadlines.....the question (of conflict of interest) doesn't always get asked. So I do not blame the writer and editor in this case."
Again with "tight deadlines." Why not be more like Republicans? Blame Obama.
Again with "tight deadlines." Why not be more like Republicans? Blame Obama.
11
Just another case of the Times' conditional application of its own standards.
Deadline pressure, so the question didn't get asked? He doesn't blame the editor or the writer. Does he dare to blame himself, the final check? And what is the excuse for rushing this through before required disclosure was complete? It was not a breaking news situation. One assumes Katyal opinion would have been the same a day later once the conflict question had been asked.
It is maddening that the Times needs to be reminded, repeatedly, that if they don't uphold their explicit standards, they effectively don't have any.
To quote Elvis Costello: "Lip Service is all you ever get from me..."
Deadline pressure, so the question didn't get asked? He doesn't blame the editor or the writer. Does he dare to blame himself, the final check? And what is the excuse for rushing this through before required disclosure was complete? It was not a breaking news situation. One assumes Katyal opinion would have been the same a day later once the conflict question had been asked.
It is maddening that the Times needs to be reminded, repeatedly, that if they don't uphold their explicit standards, they effectively don't have any.
To quote Elvis Costello: "Lip Service is all you ever get from me..."
8
Actually, Mr. Chaprack, given the left's one-sided view of responsiblity, it was all George W. Bush's fault.
1
And yet once again, the Public Editor demonstrates that she only takes complaints from liberals who are outraged that the NYT did not rigidly adhere to the liberal narrative.
No wonder the NYT is just Slate or Fox News for liberals. They literally only care about people who share their narrow partisan views.
No wonder the NYT is just Slate or Fox News for liberals. They literally only care about people who share their narrow partisan views.
2
re "Shouldn’t The Times err on the side of disclosure?":
Of course, it should.
But when was the last time it did?
Oh, and please spare us yet another "tight deadline" excuse. The Gorsuch nomination occurred Tuesday night, so why such a rush with a fawning, lickety-split opinion piece? Sorry, Mr. Dao, but you're unconvincing (again). The so-called deadline was self-imposed, and needless.
At The Times, conflicts of interest by clubby Op-Ed contributors from among The Usual Suspects are par for the course. Agendas are validated, albeit obliquely, by the knowing winks and nods of The Establishment. It's like watching an endless loop of "Groundhog Day."
And what do the great unwashed know, anyway? Ninety-nine-point-nine-nine-nine-nine-nine-nine percent of Times readers aren't even Verified Commenters, so pulling the wool over their eyes doesn't seem like any big deal.
Vetting is not The Times's strong suit, to put it mildly. So now, let us go forth ... until the next time something exactly like this happens. Or worse. Play it again, Jim.
Of course, it should.
But when was the last time it did?
Oh, and please spare us yet another "tight deadline" excuse. The Gorsuch nomination occurred Tuesday night, so why such a rush with a fawning, lickety-split opinion piece? Sorry, Mr. Dao, but you're unconvincing (again). The so-called deadline was self-imposed, and needless.
At The Times, conflicts of interest by clubby Op-Ed contributors from among The Usual Suspects are par for the course. Agendas are validated, albeit obliquely, by the knowing winks and nods of The Establishment. It's like watching an endless loop of "Groundhog Day."
And what do the great unwashed know, anyway? Ninety-nine-point-nine-nine-nine-nine-nine-nine percent of Times readers aren't even Verified Commenters, so pulling the wool over their eyes doesn't seem like any big deal.
Vetting is not The Times's strong suit, to put it mildly. So now, let us go forth ... until the next time something exactly like this happens. Or worse. Play it again, Jim.
10
In fact, the conflict's omission is grave, whether intentional or slothful on both sides. The Times duty is not to allow deceptive arguments, painted slants. But, it also reflects on the popular - and deeply engrained - perception that favor-curry is a all too common spice [have speeding tickets vanish because the judge is a fellow golfer], that forum shopping commences with small favors to clerks who not-so-blindly turns judicial-assignment barrels at the intake window (or criminal wheels prosecutors routinely like to load in weak cases). The REAL news here is, that this type of dark tampering and public predilection is presumed to spoil up to SCOTUS and that the US-clone of real Goddess IUSTITIA [Iustitia enim una virtus omnium est domina et regina virtutum] has 20/20 vision locally, besides her being a lower class undocumented, inadmissable alien .
6
Had the Times' op-ed piece informed me that its author has pending cases and fully expects to have additional cases before the court, I would have viewed the piece in an entirely different light.
10
A rather shameful episode, and one that is more stupid in our current times00 with numerous article headlines mentioning conflicts of interest that almost always involve economically material benefits. What were the editors thinking? The corporate clients benefitting Kayla's firm may help promote him in his rise within the firm...and this can mean really big bucks. The type of error that should be avoided with more care in this era of presidential knee-jerk retributions. Now Kayla's praise of Gorsuch is mixed up with the question of unmentioned possible motives. A full disclosure of interests is not always in the personal interest of lawyers who serve specially-interested clients. Not sure why the NYT felt the pressure to rush to early publication on an incompletely vetted opinion piece from an outside party...even a former opposition-appointed DOJ 'insider'. A double black eye: Kaytal and the NYT.
7
"Writers are required to disclose potential conflicts, he said,==>but the process got rushed in this case.<==" [emphasis mine] Dear God, NYT, the irony. Change writer to cabinet appointees, and we are in Trump Land.
4
In Canada our Supreme Court is there most importantly to dispense JUSTICE. The USA was founded as a country of government of the people, by the people and for the people.I do not know when property became more important than people in the USA but I do know that in 1776 everything belonged to the crown and even properties handed over by charter might be seized.
I also know that the theory of individual property rights came to the founders through John Milton's Areopagitica. I find it interesting that even in 1776 and 1783 properties rights were limited to the space between your ears and were beginning to extend to the house wall.
I know Neil Gorsuch is an educated and informed jurist. I know he calls himself a constitutional originalist who counts on his ability to understand the intent of the founders. I also know it is only the 18th century literary scholars and historians who understand original intent. We are talking late 18th century and law was written in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and French there was no English language law until the 20th century.
It is amazing to me that someone was allowed to tell the American people that lawyers could know anything about the constitution the constitution was about philosophy, science, literature and above all history. How were lawyers able to take over a country that put people in charge and made themselves supreme?
The constitution was philosophy not law and the second amendment was about the abstract rights of a sovereign nation.
I also know that the theory of individual property rights came to the founders through John Milton's Areopagitica. I find it interesting that even in 1776 and 1783 properties rights were limited to the space between your ears and were beginning to extend to the house wall.
I know Neil Gorsuch is an educated and informed jurist. I know he calls himself a constitutional originalist who counts on his ability to understand the intent of the founders. I also know it is only the 18th century literary scholars and historians who understand original intent. We are talking late 18th century and law was written in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and French there was no English language law until the 20th century.
It is amazing to me that someone was allowed to tell the American people that lawyers could know anything about the constitution the constitution was about philosophy, science, literature and above all history. How were lawyers able to take over a country that put people in charge and made themselves supreme?
The constitution was philosophy not law and the second amendment was about the abstract rights of a sovereign nation.
2
Moe, are you trying to tell us that Marbury v. Madison was written in a language other than English? I consider the US Constitution, ratified in 1789, to be law written in English, well before the 20th Century.
Can you clarify or correct?
Can you clarify or correct?
1
...ethics are oh so passe.
As I scan the comments so far, I can't help but be disappointed by the knee-jerk partisanship.
At the highest levels of jurisprudence, is there ANYONE who might have offered an opinion on Gorsuch's suitability for the Court who was not 1) already invested in one ideological worldview or the other and therefore who's view would be predictable; or 2) WOULDN'T have SOME involvement with him on SOME basis?
When I read Katyal's endorsement (to which I couldn't respond because there was no comment thread attached), I considered his arguments rational and evocative of a more civil period when such justifications could have been written by MANY Democrats of a Republican nominee and by many Republicans of a Democratic nominee. Sadly, that's no longer the case, but the arguments were as valid today as they were in a far more civil past.
Judge the quality of Katyal's arguments, and not that he needs to make a living as a lawyer.
At the highest levels of jurisprudence, is there ANYONE who might have offered an opinion on Gorsuch's suitability for the Court who was not 1) already invested in one ideological worldview or the other and therefore who's view would be predictable; or 2) WOULDN'T have SOME involvement with him on SOME basis?
When I read Katyal's endorsement (to which I couldn't respond because there was no comment thread attached), I considered his arguments rational and evocative of a more civil period when such justifications could have been written by MANY Democrats of a Republican nominee and by many Republicans of a Democratic nominee. Sadly, that's no longer the case, but the arguments were as valid today as they were in a far more civil past.
Judge the quality of Katyal's arguments, and not that he needs to make a living as a lawyer.
7
Kaytal doesn't have to make his living as a lawyer. There's always work at the Post Office.
3
You missed the point, Richie Rich. This is not even the first time that in under a year on the job, Spayd has found herself in the position of asking why the Times' own rules for disclosure for potential conflict were disposed of in the name of "deadline pressure."
I have no issue with Katyal's opinion, but Dao says the questions were skipped under deadline pressure, and he, as the editor of last resort here, both let that go, and didn't ask the question himself.
Katyal said that the issue was never raised. Here is the yuge problem. I assume that the Times solicited Katyal for the piece, in which case, the necessity of disclosing potential conflicts of interest, normal practice for lawyers and judges, should have accompanied the solicitation. In the only other possible scenario, that Katyal submitted an unsolicited opionion piece, the response from the Times that it was being accepted for publication was the time for the Times to notify Katyal that disclosure of possible conflicts of interest was required for publication.
That the Times ignored its policy is the only issue, really. The dog ate Jim Dao's homework, and that of the editor Dao is said to supervise...
I have no issue with Katyal's opinion, but Dao says the questions were skipped under deadline pressure, and he, as the editor of last resort here, both let that go, and didn't ask the question himself.
Katyal said that the issue was never raised. Here is the yuge problem. I assume that the Times solicited Katyal for the piece, in which case, the necessity of disclosing potential conflicts of interest, normal practice for lawyers and judges, should have accompanied the solicitation. In the only other possible scenario, that Katyal submitted an unsolicited opionion piece, the response from the Times that it was being accepted for publication was the time for the Times to notify Katyal that disclosure of possible conflicts of interest was required for publication.
That the Times ignored its policy is the only issue, really. The dog ate Jim Dao's homework, and that of the editor Dao is said to supervise...
4
Paul:
I read Ms. Spayd's piece, I read the Kaytal endorsement when it came out, and I see no issues here significant enough to justify such a mountain of headless corpses. Kaytal's "conflicts" are no more significant that those ANYONE likely to know Gorsuch well enough to write ANYTHIG about him are likely to have.
This is just another example of the grip political correctness is taking on our society that we would be well rid-of -- as well as excessive partisanship. Simply can't have a Democrat credibly endorsing an originalist conservative U.S. Supreme Court nominee, can we? So, instead of attacking Kaytal's arguments, you speciously attack his probity and ignore the arguments.
If the Times set about vetting the potential "conflicts" of EVERY op-ed contributor, if only to explicitly identify EVERY SINGLE ONE that someone who disagrees with the writer desperately NEEDS to attack him, then such resources would be consumed that the Times might need to close the Moscow bureau.
Get a grip om perspective.
I read Ms. Spayd's piece, I read the Kaytal endorsement when it came out, and I see no issues here significant enough to justify such a mountain of headless corpses. Kaytal's "conflicts" are no more significant that those ANYONE likely to know Gorsuch well enough to write ANYTHIG about him are likely to have.
This is just another example of the grip political correctness is taking on our society that we would be well rid-of -- as well as excessive partisanship. Simply can't have a Democrat credibly endorsing an originalist conservative U.S. Supreme Court nominee, can we? So, instead of attacking Kaytal's arguments, you speciously attack his probity and ignore the arguments.
If the Times set about vetting the potential "conflicts" of EVERY op-ed contributor, if only to explicitly identify EVERY SINGLE ONE that someone who disagrees with the writer desperately NEEDS to attack him, then such resources would be consumed that the Times might need to close the Moscow bureau.
Get a grip om perspective.
2
This is a no-brainer. Kaytal, currying favor, is pulling a fast one and the Times bit. 'Tight deadline' is never a credible excuse.
23
Oh please. You would not care at all if it had been an Obama appointee. This is just more mindless partisanship.
1
No, Mike. The problem is with the Times, not Katyal. Does the Times have standards or not? If you SAY that you do, but you don't enforce them, you might as well not have them.
2
I'm amazed that The NY Times and Kaytal still don't get the meaning of conflict of interest. He should not have been invited to, nor should he have accepted, writing on opinion about a person who'll be deciding the success or failure of his work.
31
If the Times ever chooses to stick to reporting rather than presiding all this weadeling over currying the powerful will be unnecessary.
Alas.
Alas.
2
Actually, it is surprising that the bias was not disclosed, either by the writer or by pointed questioning from the assigning editor. It is not immaterial to disclose a conflict that would directly benefit a writer's business interests. A lawyer representing, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, would presumably write a very different column than one representing pharmaceutical companies. I think the NYTs editors should come up with a more detailed list of questions to ask their commentators. And columnists need to be more complete in their disclosure.
18
I am reminded that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who at one time was most active in the ACLU, was approved by the Senate in a 96-3 vote.
You cannot tell me that the conflicts of interest of Justice Ginsberg weren't apparent, nor can you tell me that the Republicans set out to smear her legal reputation.
I only infrequently agreeing with Justice's Ginsberg, but I, as a conservative, believe that she has been, and will continue to be, an asset to that institution.
Gorshuch, given the quality of his jurisprudence, will follow in the footsteps of Justice Ginsberg and be a valuable member of the court's discussions on matters of law in this nation.
You cannot tell me that the conflicts of interest of Justice Ginsberg weren't apparent, nor can you tell me that the Republicans set out to smear her legal reputation.
I only infrequently agreeing with Justice's Ginsberg, but I, as a conservative, believe that she has been, and will continue to be, an asset to that institution.
Gorshuch, given the quality of his jurisprudence, will follow in the footsteps of Justice Ginsberg and be a valuable member of the court's discussions on matters of law in this nation.
1
@Owl, his reasoning about what constitutes infringement of free exercise of religion in Hobby Lobby (at the appellate level) and The Little Sisters of the Poor (that writing a single paragraph opting out of the Obamacare contraception mandate itself amounted to infringement of free expression) are highly troubling.
Free expression of religion must be confined to places of worship. One can only imagine Jesus' reaction to the owners of Hobby Lobby making the pursuit of profit into an expression of religion. That is particularly unconvincing magical thinking.
Free expression of religion must be confined to places of worship. One can only imagine Jesus' reaction to the owners of Hobby Lobby making the pursuit of profit into an expression of religion. That is particularly unconvincing magical thinking.
4
Highly troubling to whom? To you on the left?
What's highly troubling, Paul, is that your opposition to the measure was eminently predictable given your nanny-state government preferences.
Do I have a right to tell YOU how you run your business?
What's highly troubling, Paul, is that your opposition to the measure was eminently predictable given your nanny-state government preferences.
Do I have a right to tell YOU how you run your business?
I'm disappointed that the NYT did not make the simple effort to inform itself, and its readers, of Mr. Katyal's work and potential bias. That information effects the value of Mr. Katyal's opinions. While I also fault Mr. Katyal, it is to the NYT, not to Mr. Katyal, that I look for reporting and disclosure of op-ed writer's biases. It is not credible that the NYT, even on a tight deadline, couldn't have discovered and published this information. It needs to do better.
13
This article quotes the Op-Ed Page Editor as saying that Katyal's piece was rushed into the paper on a tight deadline and that as a result, questions that should have been asked weren't.
So, two questions: why the rush? Katyal's main point is that Gorsuch is a great guy and has a fair mind. He might be a nice guy, but his originalist jurisprudence is downright laughable if it weren't so convoluted.
Second question: the Op Ed Editor said neither the writer or the editor involved in not asking questions about Katyal's involvement at the Supreme Court shouldn't be blamed for not asking those questions. Well, who should be blamed? Hillary?
So, two questions: why the rush? Katyal's main point is that Gorsuch is a great guy and has a fair mind. He might be a nice guy, but his originalist jurisprudence is downright laughable if it weren't so convoluted.
Second question: the Op Ed Editor said neither the writer or the editor involved in not asking questions about Katyal's involvement at the Supreme Court shouldn't be blamed for not asking those questions. Well, who should be blamed? Hillary?
27
Here are some unasked and unanswered questions.How did Katyal get to write the op-ed piece, did he approach The Times or did The Times approach him? And if The Times is looking for an op-ed piece on the Gorsuch nomination, why look to a to a lawyer specializing in Supreme Court practice for it? Aren't there enough experienced or retired appellate lawyers who know the nominee, to give their opinions on Gorsuch's suitability for the Supreme Court, who have no conflicts of interest on this issue? Many and possibly most Supreme Court practitioners would decline to write an opinion piece, pro or con, on the Gorsuch nomination, and properly so. Finally, what value has an op-ed article like this, what's the diff whether he's a nice guy? It's his opinions that count.
15
The reason for getting the opinion of someone who has significant experience before the court should be obvious...
He knows how the court functions and is in a fine position to comment on the qualifications of the nominee.
Its rather silly of you to assume that everyone that reads the NY Times is a dolt or a moron, is unable to reason from A to B, and is incapable of using the tools available today to research on their own the author's qualifications to comment.
Come on, man...You have a brain. Use it.
He knows how the court functions and is in a fine position to comment on the qualifications of the nominee.
Its rather silly of you to assume that everyone that reads the NY Times is a dolt or a moron, is unable to reason from A to B, and is incapable of using the tools available today to research on their own the author's qualifications to comment.
Come on, man...You have a brain. Use it.
2
The people who should have been approached are those with experience before him as a judge, those who apoeared before him, were questioned by him in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Those people would have an informed opinion about how he reacted to and ruled on their oral and written arguments. Of course, some of those lawyers are also admitted to the Supreme Court bar, a minimum further disclosure.
It is speculative for someone who has not had a case before Gorsuch to posit how he will behave on the Supreme Court.
It is speculative for someone who has not had a case before Gorsuch to posit how he will behave on the Supreme Court.
1
Another unanswered question: how did the editorial come to be written and submitted so quickly after the announcement? Was Katyal solicited by the Trump Administration in advance of the public announcement to have a "even the liberal Solicitor General" thinkpiece ready to go?
2
I don't think it would be possible not to have heavy-handed language. The readers, faced with someone who disagrees with them, reflexively assumes the bad faith of the writer and looks to justify it. The times mentioning it, however trivially, would be taken as a finding of guilt. Presumably, there was no such search for motives made when you published many columns in support of Judge Garland.
3
I love that word "presumably." Presumably, Here, you were too lazy to look up the authors of Times' columns in support of Judge Garland which might have made your comment worth the space it takes up.
5
Here, you thoroughly miss the point. Had the Times followed its own rules regarding disclosure of possible conflict, the question of assumed "bad faith" would have been eliminated. The fault lies minimally, if at all, with Katyal. Dao and the editor he is said to supervise, were wholly negligent.
How much has this space been given over to the digital future of the Times? Since news becomes a 24 hour a day pursuit, and the print edition rapidly becomes a vestigial format, the excuse of "deadline pressure" becomes useless.
How much has this space been given over to the digital future of the Times? Since news becomes a 24 hour a day pursuit, and the print edition rapidly becomes a vestigial format, the excuse of "deadline pressure" becomes useless.
2
Paul, I think you miss a point. While the Times did have a responsibility to question, simple ethics should have impelled Katyal to mention his obvious conflict of interet.
2
So Katyal took you for a parcel of rubes. Lookin' real sharp there, Dao.
7
It would appear from all of the remarks about "readers being duped" the the omission of Mr. Kaytal's background that there are a lot of "rubes" out for an airing in this comment section.
It took me all of about four seconds to get to the following link which clearly explains who Mr. Kaytal is, what he has done, and what he continues to do today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Katyal
Are the readers of the Times THAT incapable of finding out things on their own?
Perhaps THAT is a far bigger problem than any alleged "conflict of interest" that Mr. Kaytal may be facing.
Think about it for a while.
It took me all of about four seconds to get to the following link which clearly explains who Mr. Kaytal is, what he has done, and what he continues to do today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Katyal
Are the readers of the Times THAT incapable of finding out things on their own?
Perhaps THAT is a far bigger problem than any alleged "conflict of interest" that Mr. Kaytal may be facing.
Think about it for a while.
1
I said and will repeat that the editors of the paper are the rubes in this case.
2
Gevalt! Editors, immediately investigate! Gigantic problem! Who slept on duty? Somebody was allowed to express opinion not coinciding with the party line! Who's the author? How was he allowed to call himself a liberal - he's a crook! Where's security?
6
Who slept on duty? The line editor who had the responsibility to ask Katyal to reveal possible conflicts of interest. And, more egregiously, Jim Dao, tasked with quality assurance in op-ed. He supervised that line editor without making sure that his subordinate had done his job properly and completely.
The Times publishes lots of conservative opinion pieces, mostly by invitation. You don't see that for reasons known but to you.
The Times publishes lots of conservative opinion pieces, mostly by invitation. You don't see that for reasons known but to you.
2
Why was this rushed into print? Why shouldn't the Times subject contributors to vetting? For a paper of such impeccable credentials, and critical acumen, it should be a blazing red flag when anyone, public servant or no, writes a puff piece for a Trump candidate.
6
This is Journalism 101, regardless of deadline pressures. Another example of sloppiness from the Times in areas where it matters. Once a gold standard for others to emulate, the NYT increasingly is tarnishing a reputation decades in the making.
8
There's a lot to be said, positively, about Shakespeare's recommendation regarding attorneys.
2
Shakespeare did not recommend it. Jack Cade, a historical character from the Peasant's Revolt of 1391, and a character in one of the parts of Henry VI, by Shakespeare, says it as a means to assure anarchy.
2
Wow. Katyal’s logic seems to be that since only insiders comment on the New York Times editorial page regarding Supreme Court nominations, there's no need for him to reveal potential conflicts that would benefit an insider like himself. Is it any wonder voters are fed up with revolving door elites who serve their own interests first and foremost and then attempt to justify their behavior with cynical, circular reasoning like this?
14
Spot on, Public Editor!
Haste makes waste, NY Times!
A speciality and a skill of lawyers is presenting arguments as being for the public good/made dispassionately, when in fact they benefit their clients. Of course, Katyal factored in how this piece would affect his client base and his practice of law - and saw it to his benefit and that of his clients - otherwise, he wouldn't have written it ...
Keep up the good work!
Haste makes waste, NY Times!
A speciality and a skill of lawyers is presenting arguments as being for the public good/made dispassionately, when in fact they benefit their clients. Of course, Katyal factored in how this piece would affect his client base and his practice of law - and saw it to his benefit and that of his clients - otherwise, he wouldn't have written it ...
Keep up the good work!
8
I don't envy Liz Spayd's position but it's an extremely important one especially now. With DT's calling news media liars, Caesar's wife really has to be above suspicion & this latest dereliction on the part of The Times will obviously feed into the Twitter maw. I don't know what kind of apologia could truly answer to this issue but this one strikes me as not particularly compelling.
2
Caesar's wife needs to understand that when a new Caesar takes on the robes of office, she is no longer "Caesar's wife" and able to command the attention due her station.
Take head NY Times. You are the ex-Caesar's wife now, and your responsibilities and options have changed.
Take head NY Times. You are the ex-Caesar's wife now, and your responsibilities and options have changed.
It would seem that the fault is with the Times not Katyal.
4
Ya don't think Katyal realized he had a conflict of interest? Any chance ya might be interested in a couple of bridges I got for sale?.
1
No. Because all of these guys not only see each other in court on a regular basis, but they go to the same bar association events, go to cocktail and dinner parties, go to the theater, and do all the normal things that people do in their lives.
Clarence Thomas, during the Court's summer recess, gets in an RV and tours the country, meeting and talking to The People who are actually affected by the decisions the Court makes.
Being on the Supreme Court doesn't mean the justices are locked away at night, not to be seen or heard by anyone.
Clarence Thomas, during the Court's summer recess, gets in an RV and tours the country, meeting and talking to The People who are actually affected by the decisions the Court makes.
Being on the Supreme Court doesn't mean the justices are locked away at night, not to be seen or heard by anyone.
1
Len, the only way I would blame Katyal was if he had had opinion pieces before in the NYT, and had knowledge of the Times' disclosure policy in the past.
Otherwise, and in all instances, the Times is both the final bulwark to uphold its own explicit standards, and fully culpable when it doesn't. The only way to blame Katyal is if it can be proven that he lied to Spayd when he claimed the questions about potential conflicts were never asked.
I don't think Katyal is obliged to do the Times' job for it.
I read Katyal's piece with a jaundiced eye. I read all of the Times with that jaundiced eye. I highly recommend the practice.
Otherwise, and in all instances, the Times is both the final bulwark to uphold its own explicit standards, and fully culpable when it doesn't. The only way to blame Katyal is if it can be proven that he lied to Spayd when he claimed the questions about potential conflicts were never asked.
I don't think Katyal is obliged to do the Times' job for it.
I read Katyal's piece with a jaundiced eye. I read all of the Times with that jaundiced eye. I highly recommend the practice.
1
Sloppy journalistic standards are on display.
The readers expect better work from the Times.
The readers expect better work from the Times.
7
Thank you for actually doing something, for once. Of course Katyal's corporate interests and desire to curry favor in front of Gorsuch should be mentioned. Thank you for doing this; more of the same, please.
7
Is the news media really calling for an objective and unbiased presentation of facts? Pretty sure they did away with that a long time ago. Why start now?
1
Let's just say that knowing what we know now, Kaytal's opinion was not in the least surprising. The omission of relevant information does not speak highly of either Kaytal or the Times.
31
This is the sort of excuse a teenager uses for sloppy work.
This problem arose from a sloppy attitude rather than a shortage of time.
When the NYT gives a contributor its editorial space it should be extremely careful to ensure that its readers know exactly the possible conflicts of interest.