« Come on, Eduardo! | Main | Eddy Curry and Genetic Discrimination »
Friday, October 07, 2005
Reckless Blooper
We're supposed to be "mostly" above partisanship here, so let me throw a bone in that direction now. As some of you know, PrawfsBlawg often gets peppered with blog posts from non-law professors that want us to advertise their wisdom, etc. Well, I just checked email and found a request from Nico Pitney at Think Progress, which is the blog associated with the Center for American Progress, a big, well-endowed, liberal think tank in DC where some friends of mine are affiliated. The link he sent was to this post entitled Miers’ Church Website. Sure enough, Nico wrote, Miers' church had articulated conservative views (abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and evolution are to be condemned) that had been removed from the website recently. It turns out, as now acknowledged in an updated version of the post, that the church in question was in the wrong state, and decidedly not Miers' church (though who knows about the views they hold). Nico apologized for the error and changed the title of the post to "Update Re: Miers' Church Website," but the original post is still up underneath the correction, and as of now, has failed to send out a corrective email.
As a matter of blogging ethics, I think the way to handle it is to post an apology and clarification and to remove the inaccurate material, with a followup email that clarified the situation. Perhaps the mistake is emblematic of the costs of zealous partisanship; to be honest, even if it were correct, I think the very nature of the original post undermines the Center for American Progress' credibility among the people who are supposed to consume, reflect upon, and endorse their ideas and work. Hopefully, this is just an outlier. After all, I go to a variety of services at different synagogues, and would hate to think that I'd be pegged to the beliefs of every statement from every rabbi I've met with or every community with which I've prayed.
Perhaps Miers feels differently, and does identify with each of the teachings of her faith community. Fine. But let's say she does personally believe homosexuality, abortion, evolution theory, and euthanasia are wrong as a religious matter. It doesn't follow that she would reflexively decide cases (as a Justice) in that manner. Miers may be a crummy choice for a seat at the Court, but where she davens is not, to my mind, sufficient reason to think so.
Posted by Administrators on October 7, 2005 at 08:25 AM in Blogging | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d8345959be69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reckless Blooper:
» The Memory Hole from Emergent Chaos
As an aside in a longer article, Dan Markel writes: As a matter of blogging ethics, I think the way to handle it is to post an apology and clarification and to remove the inaccurate material, with a followup... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 12:35:58 PM
Comments
I think Mr. Miller has a point: her church affiliation may not be fair game in general, but the if the administration uses it as a selling point, it becomes fair game.
Another related idea that I'd like to see debated: There seem to be a lot of these "tiny" critiques of Miers, e.g., she went to SMU and not an ivy tower; she seems to be affiliated with such-and-such set of religious beliefs, she's not a judge, etc. I call them "tiny" because each argument seems to be refuted with the idea that the argument, in and of itself, is not enough to base opposition on; alone, it doesn't meet the standard for a reasonable critique.
But what about all the arguments together? Even if none of these arguments itself is worth basing opposition on, do they add up to something greater than its parts? Considered as a list, do they form some kind of gestalt portrait of Miers as someone who should be critiqued? Is this a fair way to critique a SCt nominee?
[I suppose this is all orthogonal to the original post, which was about errors and ethics.]
Posted by: HeScreams | Oct 7, 2005 1:39:02 PM
I agree as a general matter. The administration, however, is expressly encouraging conservatives to support Ms. Miers on the ground that her affiliation with a particular evangelical christian church helps guarantee her future performance on the Court. (This is all widley reported, and Texas Supreme Court Justice Hecht's administration-backed talkathon about Ms. Miers' religious conversion is the most painfully obvious part of the campaign.) Does the inference the administration is urging change your view about the propriety of looking to Ms. Miers' church's announced positions as a proxy for her future votes on the Court?
Posted by: Joe Miller | Oct 7, 2005 9:57:40 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.