[Mb-civic] Kennedy's Assault on Editorial Writers - Charles Lane - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Kennedy's Assault on Editorial Writers
<>By Charles Lane
The Washington Post
Monday, April 3, 2006; A17

Although the Supreme Court tries to make its opinions as clear and 
convincing as possible, its decisions do occasionally come in for 
criticism on the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers.

For the most part, the court has absorbed its negative reviews 
stoically. But one justice, Anthony M. Kennedy, apparently has had 
enough of the slings and arrows. Lately, he has been publicly lashing 
out at editorialists who, he says, write as if they have not even read 
the court's opinions.

Last week, he addressed the American Society of International Law in 
Washington. In response to a question about how the organization could 
enhance public understanding of the role of foreign law in Supreme Court 
opinions -- a controversial topic of late -- Kennedy replied: "One thing 
you can do is suggest to editorial writers that they read the opinions 
before they write their editorials."

Daily news reporters, despite deadline pressure, do a reasonable job of 
explaining what the court did, though "not why we did it," Kennedy 
observed. But, he said, editorial writers, who "do not have the excuse 
of time pressure," frequently "misinterpret" the court's reasoning.

It was the second time that Kennedy had publicly bashed editorialists 
for not reading the court's words. He first made the charge at the 
American Bar Association's symposium on the international rule of law in 
November.

Kennedy cited no specific editorial or newspaper, so it was not clear 
exactly what he had in mind. Editorial writers at major newspapers said 
they were mystified.

Fred Hiatt, The Washington Post's editorial page editor, said that his 
staff reads "all the court's opinions before writing our editorials. If 
he thinks we've made mistakes, I'd love to hear from him."

"I wouldn't dream of writing an editorial about a Supreme Court opinion 
without reading it," said Steve Chapman, who has been the Chicago 
Tribune's editorialist on court issues for almost 20 years. Chapman says 
he relies on the opinions for the facts of each case and the litigants' 
legal arguments. "Maybe I'm weird, but I love reading Supreme Court 
opinions," he said.

At the New York Times, Adam Cohen, a Harvard Law School graduate who 
writes that paper's legal editorials, said, "I don't know who he's 
referring to, but I don't think it would be fair if he's referring to 
us." Cohen said he reads not only the opinions but the briefs in every case.

"It's kind of ironic, because I'm right now working on a piece about 
Justice Kennedy, and I'm reading all of his opinions," Cohen added.

A Long-Shot Case Against Kissinger

It has been more than 32 years since Chile's armed forces toppled the 
elected government of Marxist President Salvador Allende. But the 
repercussions continue. The latest example: a long-shot Supreme Court 
case against Henry A. Kissinger for alleged complicity in the murder of 
a Chilean general.

In October 1970, Gen. Rene Schneider was commander in chief of the 
Chilean army, but rightists considered him soft on Allende, who had not 
yet taken office. He was killed during an attempted kidnapping by 
coup-plotters who had previously received covert U.S. support at 
then-national security adviser Kissinger's direction.

A Senate committee found in 1975 that U.S. support had been withdrawn by 
the time of the murder, and that U.S. officials did not seek Schneider's 
death.

Schneider's heirs, however, do not accept that account. On Sept. 10, 
2001, they filed a wrongful death suit against Kissinger and former CIA 
director Richard Helms (since deceased and dropped from the case) in the 
U.S. District Court in Washington. Their complaint alleged that 
Kissinger's "intentional acts were the proximate cause of Gen. 
Schneider's death."

Lower courts have dismissed the case, ruling that it raises a "political 
question" beyond the competence of the courts. But in their appeal to 
the Supreme Court, which is on the agenda for the justices' April 14 
conference, Schneider's sons Rene and Raul, and the personal 
representative of his estate, Washington lawyer Jose Pertierra, argue 
that the political question doctrine should not "preclude the 
adjudication of violations of individual rights."

The Bush administration has taken up Kissinger's defense, because the 
suit stems from allegations about his conduct while a U.S. official. 
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement's brief urges the court to uphold 
dismissal of the suit because it "would necessarily require a court to 
evaluate the reasonableness of the President's broader decision, at the 
height of the Cold War, to take actions to prevent a Marxist-led 
government from taking power in Chile." Historians may never settle that 
question. And, the administration argues, the courts should not try.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040200841.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060403/675913d9/attachment-0001.htm