Right wing nuts should not be nuts about Koh Tom Smith

Harold Koh has been dean of the Yale Law School for quite a while and was even an associate at the law firm I was at in DC.  It was annoying how often partners referred to him as having gone off to pursue his wonderful career and how wonderful he truly was.  But the fact his, his record could not be more distinguished.  He is the absolutely natural choice of a leftish President as his State Department Legal Advisor, a prestigious and important post.  Or at least one always said to be, though why it is so important I would be hard pressed to say.  I am certain, however, that it is very prestigious.

International Law is not my area.  But I find it very hard to believe Professor Koh has said any of the silly things that are being attributed to him, along the lines of, let's enforce sharia law in the US. There are certain things I do believe.  For example, I think it is quite believable that State Attorney General Clinton did rape that woman in Arkansas. But I do not believe that Professor Koh said let's enforce sharia in the US at some alumni gathering.  Possibly some Yale Law Alum thought that was what he said.  One of the things I like about having gone to a wealthy law school is that open bars are frequently present at alumni gatherings.  But seriously, you don't get to be the dean of Yale Law School by saying stupid things, or at least not that sort of stupid thing.  I read most of Professor Koh's first book, the one with a picture of the world on the cover naturally enough, and I have forgotten what it said.  It was 20 some years ago.  But I remember thinking, Well, I guess this is pretty much what you would expect the liberal-progressive view of international law and powers of the presidency to be and wondering why it was regarded as an especially good book. Indeed, I remember finding it dull, but then I find most books on law dull, perhaps suggesting I am in the wrong field.  So  I didn't like it, but there was nothing in it to make me think he was outside of the mainstream of liberal law professors. (here it is.  Geez, would somebody please review it on Amazon already?) That's no great bargain to be sure, but one should hardly expect Obama to be appointing conservative international law skeptics to his State Department. Judging by the tags of professional accomplishment, the burden is on those who are attacking Koh to come up with some reason he is not qualified, a burden not met by quoting years old memories of some remark at an alumni gathering, as reported by some people who claim to remember it.  For one thing, the probability of anything memorable being said at one of these alumni gatherings is extremely small.

There is a bigger issue here.  For all that I enjoy listening to Glen Beck or Rush fulminate on my satellite radio, they can be nutballs.  There is a danger of the Resistance (I like that term, borrowed from the wise heads at Econlog) becoming known as the party of the nutballs.  On the other hand, from the time of the disgraceful Bork hearings, there has been a tradition among liberal intellectuals including legal ones that lies told about conservatives are not really lies, or are perhaps Platonic noble lies.  So should conservatives and libertarians just not interfere as right wing nuts beat up on a probably innocent (if not perhaps in the largest sense harmless) liberal such as Koh?  I don't really have an answer for that.  But I do know I don't want to be associated with such intellectual thuggery.  Speaking just for myself then, I will say that the right wing critics of Koh are doing an excellent job appearing to be nearly totally ignorant of the relevant areas of law and look like know-nothing attack puppies of anything liberal.  As is their right, I suppose.  Everyone has to make their own way down the right wing nut career path I suppose.  But just maybe they should consider talking to some real conservative international law experts (of which I am not one, but there are some out there) before they shoot off their mouths.  Just a thought.  My fear is that by attacking sterling if quite liberal candidates such as Koh, all the political capital will be spent when it comes time to oppose somebody really dangerous or unqualified who is nominated to high legal office, which is unfortuantely a lamentable possibility we may face soon enough.

Comments

[Randy]

Excellent, excellent points. Many of the criticisms of Koh have been off-base and unhinged, which is an unproductive and undignified way to criticize someone's public record. When there are good reasons to criticize, why make up stupid ones? And better have him at State (a job he does seem well-suited for) than taking his views to the Supreme Court.

That said, Koh has always been highly-partisan, on the leftish edge of even YLS and something of a grandstander. That someone who seemed never to miss a chance to criticize Republicans and preen his own views in public (including at alumni gatherings, from personal experience) now has people crying foul on his behalf is, well, thick. This is further amusing given the fact that the specter of Bork is being raised, someone who received a fair bit of self-righteous and unfair criticism from his own former colleagues at YLS.

[Gail]

I strongly suspect Koh was talking about enforcing a choice of law provision in a contract.