Wednesday, February 02, 2011

I Have the Right to Remain Silent about Mr. Spitzer -- But I Won't Do So

A few minutes ago I received an announcement from the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. The Society is holding a conference called "Federal Courts, Inc?" at New York University. There will be many eminent panelists at this event -- for example, Martin H. Redish, Jeff Rosen, Nadine Strossen, and my colleague Alexander A. Reinert.

Eliot Spitzer, the announcement reveals, will give the keynote address.

What explains the choice of Mr. Spitzer?

His eminence as a legal scholar?

His exemplary conduct?

I am perplexed.

Do I need to recite the conduct that led to Mr. Spitzer's resignation as governor of the State of New York? I don't think so. Suffice it to say that Mr. Spitzer's conduct was unprofessional, unethical, and corrosive of the public's trust in government.

The choice of Mr. Spitzer as the keynote speaker of a major law conference is a disgrace.

The choice of Mr. Spitzer as the keynote speaker says volumes about the attitudes of the people who run the American Constitution Society.

I repeat my question: What explains the choice of Mr. Spitzer?

His aggressiveness and arrogance?

His fame? His infamy?

His wealth?

I assume it's some combination of the above factors.

When Mr. Spitzer was New York's attorney general, he was much less forgiving of his adversaries than the ACS is of him.

As governor, Mr. Spitzer did not do much better: He promised to be a steamroller.

Mr. Spitzer's arrogance alone should have disqualified him as keynote speaker at the conference to be held at NYU.

Perhaps sometimes there is such a thing as guilt by association.


The dynamic evidence page

It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.

Post a Comment