Posted by Orin Kerr:
More Starr on the Filibuster:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_08-2005_05_14.shtml#1116020779
Those following the story about CBS's possible misrepresentation of
Ken Starr's comments on the filibuster (get up to speed [1]here) might
be interested in a larger excerpt of the e-mail exchange quoted
yesterday by Ramesh Ponnuru over at [2]Bench Memos. The e-mail is
making the rounds, and I have verified its authenticity. The exchange
starts with Kirkland & Ellis associate [3]Steve Engel e-mailing Starr
(a former Kirkland partner) to see if he was misquoted. Starr responds
with this e-mail:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Starr, Ken"
Sent: 05/11/2005 06:53 PM
To: "'Steven Engel'"
Subject: RE: misquoted on filibusters?
Steve:
I just watched the CBS report. Totally wrong employment of the
snippet: I was condemning the Democrats for challenging judges
based on philosophy. It was in that context that I made the radical
departure point. Wow. Ken
Later, Starr adds a fuller explanation in another e-mail, forwarding
on his response to Engel:
I have now seen the CBS report. Attached is an exchange with
Steve Engel at K&E-Washington, who alerted me earlier today to
other dimensions of the wild misconstruction of what I said in the
Gloria Borger interview.
Brief background: I sat on Saturday with Gloria for 20 minutes
(approx.) and had a wide-ranging on-camera discussion. In the piece
that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted,
CBS employed two snippets. The "radical departure" snippet was
specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever
from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as
a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and
experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong.
I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during
Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted
(rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed
with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to
confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences.
. . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested
elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I
am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I
likewise made clear that the "filibuster" represents an entirely
new use (and misuse)of a venerable tradition.
Anyway, our folks here at Pepperdine's Public Information Office
(who arranged the CBS interview) are scrambling to get the full
transcript of the entire interview. But our friends are way off
base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my
views, or (b) what I in fact said.
Kindly feel free to share this message with anyone you deem
appropriate. Ken
References
1. http://slate.msn.com/id/2118301/&#boomerang
2. http://www.nationalreview.com/benchmemos/062887.asp
3.
http://www.kirkland.com/ourFirm/lawyerBio.aspx?InfiniumH4ID=9096&employeeH4ID=29098&attorneyH4ID=10374
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
