GOP Legal Heavy Ted Olson Dismisses Right-Wing Assault On Obama Nominee
Theodore Olson, the top conservative attorney who served under Reagan and George W. Bush, dismissed attacks from the right on Obama’s choice for a top legal post, defending the pick as a “man of great integrity.”
Right-wingers from Glenn Beck to Fox News are waging a loud campaign against Harold Koh, the nominee for the key post of legal adviser to the state department, saying he’s willing to impose Sharia law on U.S. courts and wants to subjugate America to international law.
Olson doesn’t think much of the criticism.
“The President and the Secretary of State are entitled to have who they want as their legal adviser,” Olson said in a phone interview with me.
Olson was sharply dismissive of claims that Koh is too solicitous of international law. While he declined to discuss the specifics of the case against Koh, much of which has been already debunked, he pushed back hard against the broader claim that Koh’s regard for international law is cause for suspicion.
“He has been in international law his entire professional life,” Olson said. “Of course he’s very involved in the subject.”
Olson, who argued the Bush side in Bush v. Gore and was solicitor general under Bush, carries great weight among conservatives, so his defense of Koh is likely to take the steam out of the right’s campaign. Koh worked under Olson in the Reagan Justice Department.
“I have the greatest respect for Harold Koh,” Olson said. “He’s a brilliant scholar and a man of great integrity.”
Many defenders of Koh have wondered who is going to stand up and defend Koh. Olson isn’t a bad start.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
I have to say this surprises me. I had assumed the ‘internationalism’ aspect would not find a happy home with Olson. I’ll keep an eye out for opinions expressed by other Federalist Society biggies to see if Olson’s magnanimity (sincere, I’m sure) is shared more broadly. I have trouble imagining Scalia will be a happy boy. But, on the other hand, there’s a good chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.
ps greg – well done on rounding up the interview…that’s good and helpful information.
Someone made this observation over at balloon juice yesterday. When conservatives are faced with evidence they are wrong they don’t fall back, instead they dig in harder and pushback even more. I suspect that while any reasonable person who might have had the slightest concern about Koh will be reasured now, most of the Republicans and conservative talking heads who are leading this smear machine won’t be dissuaded and instead will just yell even louder.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. The Washington leagal community (the real legal community, not the Bushies) is as close a nit group as the US Senate.
Someone made this observation over at A BLOG yesterday. When LIBERALS are faced with evidence they are wrong they don’t fall back, instead they dig in harder and pushback even more. I suspect that while any reasonable person who might have had the slightest concern about ROBERT BORK will be reasured now, most of the Democrats and liberal talking heads who are leading this smear machine won’t be dissuaded and instead will just yell even louder.
Fixed that for ya. Stereotyping is bad – mmkay?
bs: too bad you have no analogy at all:
This is an internal advising post – not a Supreme Court position – so much for the Bork comparison.
And – Bork was recognized as a competent scholar but also he was a true idealogue. There is no evidence of an idealogue here – just the insane bleatings of the right wing sturm and drang machine. When a prominent conservative who has worked with Koh calls out the bs being promulgated by the likes of Glenn (clueless) Beck – it shows how out of the mainstream these “critics” are. They will jump on anything and say anything to make their pretend case.
The fact that anyone takes Beck seriously ever is astonishing sometimes. The man sometimes seems like he should be wearing a helmet and oven mitts for his own protection.
When someone like Ted Olson defends an Obama appointee I go directly to RED ALERT. I then start to look suspiciosly at all involved.
What Greg Sargent doesn’t tell you about is this much stronger argument:
blog.heritage.org/2009/04/01/the-latest-obama-threat-to-us-sovereignty
Go read what Koh supports in his own words. Oddly enough, the Slate article Greg Sargent links to doesn’t discuss that Heritage article, instead focusing on a weaker NYPost article. Why, it’s almost like neither Dahlia Lithwick nor Greg Sargent are simply lightweights who can’t take on a real argument.
Also, his views on int’l law aren’t the only reason to oppose him. Here at home, he’s a supporter of illegal activity and corruption:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/006885.html
24AheadDotCom
First, citing your own blog for support is at best a weak way to prove anything (except that you crave hits). But upon arrival at this storehouse of the treasonous position of Mr. Koh we are treated to the laughable article concerning his support of a municipal id card. You have jumped the gun concerning legality, since until and unless a court determines that such an id card is “illegal and corrupt”, this represents nothing other than being a good citizen of one’s municipality.
Referring to a Heritage article is also a weak proof of anything, since this was not reporting but clear commenting. Perhaps also you could try to understand the difference between gleaning legal principals from all sources of law and actually stating the one should be subject to such laws. There’s a big difference.
But that would require taking the sunglasses off and looking around at the real world.
Try it. You may not like it, but at least it will be real.
The post linked above contains a statement from Koh in which he can’t see a problem with giving out a municipal ID card. What “eddie” fails to note is that the ID card was intended to give an ID to those here illegally. That makes it easier for them to stay here (after breaking our laws). While living here illegally, they’ll be involved in other law breaking: some will engage in ID theft, some will be hired illegally, and so on. And, there in the background, banks want to accept their deposits (of money that was earned illegally) and send some of that illegally earned money out of the U.S. And, those banks then take a portion of their profits and donate it to politicians who look the other way when it comes time to enforce our laws. That’s not bags-of-cash corruption, but it is corruption nonetheless.
So, once you actually understand what’s going on with this issue, you’ll see that Koh was indeed supporting a sleazy web of illegal activity and corruption.
Some background on this issue is here:
24ahead.com/s/new-haven
Not related to Koh but related to the overall issue of corrupt companies donating to politicians who’ll look the other way, the NYT almost followed the money on one such company:
24ahead.com/blog/archives/007265.html
Put that company’s name in the third search box for much more on them.
For more on corrupt banks (not specifically about Koh) see this:
http://24ahead.com/s/immigration-banks
Olson is extremely conservative but he is also well-educated and intelligent, unlike Beck and 24IQDotCom. Olson won’t abide rabble-rousing idiots taking down a legal establishment figure. Koh will prevail and Glenn Beck will have to get used to wearing a burka and giving up pork, I guess.
Ted Olson is dead wrong about Koh, and I can’t imagine what has gone wrong with Olson.
I will tell you this … with these kinds of Republicans, the party really has little of a future. It’s time for Conservatives to move a third party forward and leave Republicans like Olson in the ditch.
When are the rabid righties going to understand that they lost the election and have no power?
They come across as sore losers who also do not comprehend the severity of our nation’s problems. They want to fight the same old wars using the same old hateful tactics. We need for them to continue to lose numbers in the next election. They don’t want to compromise or help. They should just all go away.
It isn’t Koh’s integrity, primarily, that is being questioned, it’s his value system applied to intl. law, applied to tranzi orgs, etc. Marx and Engels were men of integrity, Lenin was a man of integrity, A. Hitler was a man of integrity, as applied to their own value systems. So what? And no, that is not said to compare Koh to those far more historic actors. Instead, it’s said to note that internal integrity per se – internal to one’s own value system – is not an inherent and unqualified good, more broadly conceived. As well, taking note of that fact is not to merely dismiss Olson’s regard for Koh, it more simply places it within a certain perspective. Olson is a respected attorney, not a respected social/political analyst more broadly conceived and conceived with more appreciable depth.
To Michael B: If Koh is being hired to deliver legal opinions to the WH then what is relevant to that appointment is his legal experise, which seems to be immense. And considering that this administration will be much concerned with international relations, an expert in int. law would be an excellent choice. I am not a lawyer, but my son is (Columbia Law, top 10% if I may brag on him a bit) and during his training he was taught to be able to argue all sides of a case, So Koh’s cred as a “social/political analyst” is totally out of the picture. He delivers legal opinions and options, for the other things (no less important) there are political advisers and not least, Obama himself, who has shown no little talent in that area. His campaign did beat the Clinton machine (while the GOP at least somewhat beat itself).
This sort of carping only reminds the broad mainstream (and mostly the independents) of how desperate and out-of=touch the “conservative” GOP losers are. They remind me of Lincoln’s (Abe, not Blanche) description of Gen. Rosecrans after the Battle of Chickamauga “dazed and confused, like a duck that has been hit on the head”.
J Rosen,
Congratulations, re, your son.
1) Koh is being forwarded as the State Department’s legal advisor – i.e. relavant to international relations in general and not merely as a narrowly conceived legal advisor. As such, he will be helping to forge relations in general as well as international agreements vis-a-vis the U.N., the ICJ, other states. He will not be an advisor in the narrow and restricted sense you’re indicating.
2) Koh has demonstrated a highly pronounced ideological bent, one reflecting a tranzi – “progressivist” transnationalist – set of interests wherein American exceptionalism is denied and usurped by those ideological interests.
3) In the same spirit and according to a NYPost report, “Koh has called America’s focus on the War on Terror ‘obsessive.’ In 2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law – ‘most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America,’ which he branded ‘the axis of disobedience.’”
4) He has also reportedly indicated aspects of Sharia law “in appropriate cases” could be adopted within the U.S.
5) You further move on from seemingly more responsible comments to mere dismissive and far more presumptive comments, about “carping,” suggesting I’m commenting merely as a reactionary and right-winger “conservative” and “loser,” who is “desperate,” “out of touch” and “dazed and confused.”
Oh dear.
Iow, from your initial misapprehensions through to your more desperate and presumptive ad hominem attacks, you’re the one who is demonstrating the fact that you are out of touch, not I.
Michael B.
“4) He has also reportedly indicated aspects of Sharia law “in appropriate cases” could be adopted within the U.S.”
Perhaps you should do your own research rather than relying on rightwing blogs? The claim that Koh has said Sharia could be adopted in the U.S. was made by a single attendee at a talk Koh gave in 2007. The organizers and other attendees of the event deny that Koh said any such thing, and no one has turned up any other evidence that Koh is pro-Sharia.
Given that just three weeks after the event, Koh criticized sharia in his testimony before the House about human rights in Iran, which was the third Google hit for “Koh sharia” before the NY Post article hit, perhaps a little original research instead of an automaton’s recitation of the words of the rightwing media would serve you well.
Your comparisons to Hitler also are moronic — did Hitler’s ideological opponents say, as Olson did here, “I have the greatest respect for [Hitler]“?
The fact that Koh is a transnationalist, while it might be cause for concern in a Supreme Court nomination where the person’s views on how to interpret the Constitution and U.S. statutes are the primary focus, is actually a GREAT thing for someone going to the State Department.
Moreover, why are Republicans up in arms about this now, when Koh was unanimously approved by the Senate — one including Republicans! — as an assistant secretary of state in Clinton’s State Department? Something more alarming about having the same guy come back to work in the same department when it’s President Barack Hussein Obama?
We voted for change and Koh is part of the change we want. And yes, the Republicans lost. Based on their behavior lately I can only assume they’ll continueto lose for some time.
PG,
Read – and comprehend.
+ I specifically used the terms “reportedly” and “aspects of” in the referenced comment (#4). Those words have meaning. You chose to ignore that meaning. In short, my argument and concerns do not rest upon that single report and reference.
+ Something else you chose to ignore: I specifically stated, as applied to the Marx, Engels, Lenin and Hitler reference that it “… not said to compare Koh to those far more historic actors. … it’s said to note that internal integrity per se – internal to one’s own value system – is not an inherent and unqualified good, more broadly conceived.”
+ Thirdly, you then sneer about “Barack Hussein Obama.” Yet another strawman formulation I did not use.
+ Fourthly, your ad hominem froth about “moronic.”
In short, if you’re going to respond, respond to something that was said, not a set of strawmen created by your imagination and inattentiveness.
“It’s time for Conservatives to move a third party forward”
Yes, please.
It’s long past time for genuine classical liberals to move a third party forward – and prise themselves away from leftist ideologues. The latter have forwarded not a single thought of note in this thread. Not one.
Excellent post, I wish I’d have found your blog earlier!