Conservative Icon Kenneth Starr Backs Obama Legal Pick Targeted By Right
Hmmm, this one should really take the steam out of the conservative assault on one of Obama’s top legal picks, his choice for the hot-button post of legal adviser to the State Department.
Obama’s pick, Harold Koh, has been targeted relentlessly by Glenn Beck, Fox News, right-wing bloggers and others.
But now it looks like Koh has picked up the backing of an, er, unimpeachable conservative icon: Kenneth Starr.
Koh’s conservative critics claim Koh would impose Sharia law on U.S. courts (already debunked) and would subjugate America to international law. And though it’s low profile, this is a major post: Koh, a strong Bush critic, would shape the administration’s legal policies and could undo Bush’s controversial ones — hence the campaign against him.
But now the Yale Daily News reports that Starr gave a talk at the university last week, where he announced his backing for Koh. According to witnesses, Starr said that the President and Secretary of State had the right to choose their own legal advisers and called on the Senate to defer to them.
Starr’s reported claims echo those made to me recently by another conservative icon, Bush and Reagan lawyer Theodore Olson.
Fox News and Glenn Beck versus Kenneth Starr and Theodore Olsen? Not exactly a fair fight. Hard to see where the campaign against Koh goes from here.
( Via FDL.)
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Talk about a mixed intellectual reaction to a post – not sure if I am at all energized by anything associated with Ken Starr…but in the spirit of “positiveness” – good for Koh! (i think?)
Hey, that’s Judge Starr to you, leftie.
“Hard to see where the campaign against Koh goes from here.
”
Written by someone inhabiting reality.
I think the Republicans gave up the ghost on Koh awhile back. I don’t think they have a chance in hell of blocking him. Judge Ginsberg’s talk about international law over the weekend also tore their arguments to shreds. But they may just block him for awhile just to be arseholes but I don’t think its a winner in the end. And the more they do that kind of thing the more they hurt their party in the end.
Very interesting, greg. Thanks for the data and link. I’m sure we’ll continue to hear from Bolton and the Commentary/National Review crowd on the imminent danger to American sovereignty. But this suggests their particular nuttiness on this isn’t shared as broadly as I’d feared.
I’m thinking of this in terms of the Broder thread. Is there a possibility we’re beginning to see a small separation between the Villagers and the right media ranters?