THE SHAPE OF ASS-COVERING TO COME. At the ACS conference this weekend, there was an interesting panel about covering the court, moderated by Tom Goldstein (who turns out to be a terrific, witty public speaker) featuring Emily Bazelon (part of Slate's formidable, gratifyingly non-contrarian one-two punch for legal commentary), Linda Greenhouse, and the man famous for asserting his nominal liberalism before taking the Republican side in virtually all legal and political controversies, Stuart Taylor. Goldstein (paraphrasing here) asked Taylor if he had second thoughts about his clown-show claims that Sam Alito was a moderate who would disappoint conservatives. Taylor briefly conceded that Alito and Roberts had been more conservative that he expected, but then tried to reassert their fabled moderation by noting that not only Ginsburg and Stevens but Scalia attacked their jurisprudence. But, of course, Scalia didn't attack Roberts because of any ideological differences. Rather, he attacked Roberts and Alito for reaching substantive conclusions indistinguishable from Scalia's but then being dishonest about what it means for whether precedents remain good law. This doesn't make them moderates; it means that they're completely doctrinaire reactionaries who would prefer that their gutting of precedents attract as little attention as possible, while Thomas and Scalia are at least willing to be honest about what they're doing. This may fool people like Taylor, but it shouldn't fool you.
--Scott Lemieux
