Would Koh be more liberal than Thomas is conservative?

You've said w/o a fillibuster proof majority "his confirmation would be a near impossibility" but you haven't said why. He's partisan? What and Alito & Roberts weren't? Besides, as we all know filibusters for the Supreme Court are nearly unprecedented - what about this guy is so unique that would justify all republicans coming together to filibuster him?

Lat,

If you don't like Koh or don't think he'd make a good Justice, have the balls to say so (and actually explain why), rather than passive-aggressively pointing to content-less soundbites from others who share your view.

I think Lat's views on Koh are pretty clear from his earlier coverage...

Re: the "content-less soundbites," 1:44, you can click on the handy-dandy little link for each soundbite, to read the complete, content-full post.

Conservative = justice will act in a partisan manner.

Liberal = justice will act as if mental illness has set in

Doesn't seem like you've exercised any restraint at all in in voicing your opinion. The criticisms voiced of Koh are more applicable to the likes of many of the conservatives sitting on the federal bench (or were nominated to it) - narcisistic, political zealots who do not tolerate opinions different from their own.

Can someone explain to me why Harold Koh would be a better pick than HLS Dean Elena Kagan? (Aside from the "first" of having an Asian American on the SCOTUS.)

Kagan seems a lot like Koh - brilliant, well-connected, liberal, a member of the Elect - but more well-liked by conservatives, and more confirmable.

So why Koh > Kagan?

I think the real question is whether Koh is more liberal than Bork was conservative. The Republicans would love to do to a liberal nominee what the Democrats did to Bork (or what Bork let the Democrats do to him...). The Republicans have not yet had that chance because Clinton nominated two pretty tame justices.

Roberts and Alito were more like Breyer and Ginsburg; there just wasn't enough to get any traction on the claims that they were scary. I think Koh would come out swinging and provide that traction.

Kagan is great and should be sitting on the DC Circuit right now, but was held up by filibuster of one during the days of President Clinton & Chairman Hatch.

Lat, you're really trying to develop a right wing following, huh? Too bad, I used to like you.

I'm conservative, but I enjoy watching The Daily Show. I can laugh at Stewart's jokes, even if I don't share his politics.

Why are liberals so much more insistent than conservatives on having their humor conform to their ideological views?

If somebody wants to start a left-leaning version of ATL, it would probably do well, judging from all the commenters here who complain about the slightest whiff of conservatism.

1:59: You hit the nail on the head. Even though I don't want him on the SCOTUS, I would love for Koh to get nominated --- just for the entertainment value of his hearings.

We haven't had REALLY juicy hearings since Anita Hill. That was a LONG time ago.

I think Lat's point is beyond politics and is about personality. Not every criticism of liberals is a criticism of liberalism. Kagan is liberal but I bet he would not post something like this about her.

Unless you're Koh, I don't think you should be offended by this post.

As a *liberal* recent YLS alum, I shudder to think of Koh on the Supreme Court -- for many reasons, including his horrible public speaking abilities, and repeated/tiresome self-promotion at the expense of even being a decent dean -- actual teaching, leadership, or fundraising, (yes, we know, you were in North Korea...we heard you the first 20 times). The most amusing part of BarBri (hosted at YLS) was when Koh wandered in and started reminiscing about his time clerking on the Supreme Court, and several non-YLS BarBri takers couldn't stop snickering about who this random guy was; he had not deigned to introduce himself, and given his lack of contact with actual YLS students, had not realized that over half of the people in the room were not YLS grads.

As evidence that Koh would be a lousy SCOTUS Justice, Lat points to criticism from right-wing bloggers who would never in a million years support any liberal to the Court? Wow. Send out a CNN breaking news email about that. Glenn Reynolds opposes a liberal on the Supreme Court. Who'd have thunk it?

2:10, yeah, politics aside, I think Lat should really want a Koh nomination, especially if he thinks it will fail. Lat should start a nominate Koh movement. If Koh doesn't come out swinging, he can surely be easily provoked.

2:25 - that is hilarious. Why did he wander in in the first place?

1.) 2:07 -- was the post even trying to be funny?

2.) I'm not conservative, but I like smart conservatives. I read them. Lat, however, has a bad habit of cheap back-of-the-hand potshots that are too serious to be breezy but too weakly articulated to take seriously. Amid the clever and off-beat posts that we all presumably enjoy, he frequently publishes junk like this. When he does, it has the feel of a host ruining his party by throwing a tantrum. If he wants a soapbox for ideological ranting, maybe he can start a second blog. I'm sure it would have a readership. Until then, I really, really, really wish he would learn self-restraint.

2:30 -- he claimed that a multistate question was based on an opinion he had written while clerking, and that all of the answers were wrong.

2:26: True, but there are degrees of opposition. Conservatives would oppose Koh far more vehemently than pretty much any other Dem shortlister (Kagan, Tatel, Garland, Sotomayor, Diane Wood, etc.).

2:25 is right. Koh is an awful public speaker. He should go to Toastmasters or something.

But if he's as vocal as Thomas on the bench, will it really matter?

2:36: wow, how very helpful of him. I don't know why that strikes me as so funny - just some random dude walking in while you're gutting it out with the bar exam. What a jackass.

2:44 -- can you really see him being as vocal as Thomas on the bench?

Diane Wood would be a smart pick. And if the vacancy happens early enough, she will still be young enough. (She was born in 1950.)

I'm really glad I got my Harold Koh bobblehead before he became a Supreme Court Justice, so I can round out my collection!

Lat, Lat, Lat. You are so glib. I have studied the history of psychiatry.

Lat, Lat. Listen, Lat.

Harold Hongju Koh will NEVER be nominated (let alone confirmed) to a SCOTUS seat. It's either wishful thinking by whacked-out liberals or extreme paranoia by conservatives to say otherwise. It's not unlike the absurd suggestions that Patrick Fitzgerald would get the nod for AG if Gonzo steps down. Merrick Garland...now there's a realistic suggestion for a SCOTUS nomination. But Koh? Please...

And why all the hatin' by wounded liberals out there? It's not hard to figure out why Lat thinks Koh is a no-go. If you think Dean Koh makes a great pick, then say your piece. Just stop bitching about the lack of substantive content in a forum that represents the legal world's answer to US Weekly.

As a liberal, I see the rumors of Harold Koh's nomination as a strong strategic move. The Democrats have a very strong chance of winning the White House and a better chance of upping the number of Senate and House Dems. I doubt that they would get the 2/3's majority. But if they get the white house and the 2/3's vote, Harold Koh would be a great stick it to your face nominee. If they only get the white house and retain a congressional majority, the threat of Koh would cause a great compromise for the more low-profile aforementioned names.

Just want to give a different perspective on two points:

1) I took the BarBri class hosted at YLS a few years ago, and Koh also walked into our class. It was the first day, during one of our breaks, and he started giving a little speech without introducing himself first. The class had about 40 students, only 2/3rds of whom went to Yale, but he knew all the YLSers by name, so I’m sure he was aware of that fact. (I can’t imagine why 2:25 said that Koh lacks contact with actual YLS students; I’m not sure I know a professor who has more of it.) Anyway, the speech Koh gave was pretty much just a pep talk – don’t stress too much, you’ll all do great, etc. It was brief, unhelpful, unremarkable, and entirely unobjectionable.

2) I’m surprised to hear people say Koh is a bad speaker. I actually think he’s quite a good speaker, as long as you focus on his delivery rather than the content of his speech. He loves to name drop, and he loves to refer to himself and his accomplishments. But in terms of eloquence, he’s very impressive.

2:25 -- Koh has his faults, but lack of contact with the students is not one of them. As far as I can tell, he knows the name of virtually every student at YLS.

Can you say "SNOWBALLS chance in hell of confirmation"?

Koh would be a disaster, and Lat is right. Koh is a ridiculous partisan, more so than any other prospective Democratic appointee.

And the angry liberals who are angry at Lat trying to establish a right-wing following -- what makes you assume that he isn't a conservative, and that he is not pandering instead with comments of moderation or liberalism.

On a scale of 1 to Harriet Miers, how bad would the nomination be?

it cracks me up when right wingers complain. the first comment makes the point perfectly. no - koh would not be more liberal than thomas is conservative. equilibrium would require nader to be appointed to the bench. the last real "liberals" on the court were douglas, brennan, and marshall. now were have four far-right justices, four moderates, and one sort-of liberal. the reason liberals get annoyed with bashing is because the second reagan admin, and then both bushes have stocked the appellate courts with fascists (some qualified, some not), while clinton appointed mostly moderates (including many republicans) and didn't bother to fight for the few qualified liberals he did appoint (e.g., cj roberts' law partner). as a result, appellate law has become sort of boring. from a less selfish point of view, the implications for plaintiffs, criminal defendants, and anyone outside the plutocracy are far more dire. screed done, i didn't attend yale, don't know koh personally (i know his writings well enough to support the above comments), and thus have no basis for making counterarguments regarding his other possible shortcomings. nor would i want to. there are plenty of qualified progressive jurists out there. someone mentioned wood - she would be a fine choice.

Just to address an earlier comment: Roberts and Alito are in the mainstream of both judicial philosphy and political viewpoints. Alito is definitely on the conservative end of the spectrum but entirely within the mainstream, while Roberts it is a little harder to discern. The fact that law school students at elite schools are almost universally exposed to a range of views from far left, liberal, moderate-liberal, does not that change this fact. Please go outside NYC, Boston, and San Francisco and speak to other people and I am sure you would realize what kind of bubble you live in.

At law school, maybe one or two professors who characterized as hard core conservatives but are usually moderate conservative or libertarian and more liberal in some cases on social views than the average American.

Koh, unfortunately lives in a bubble where everyone supports unrestricted abortion laws, affirmative action, and defers to international law. Koh does not seem to recognize this and appears to be highly intolerant of those who disagree.

Roberts and Alito mainly interacted with those with opposite opinions and were known to be highly tolerant of colleagues or law clerks with different views.

There is no comparison. BTW, if the Democrats had the majority, Alito would have been filibustered. The Republicans under this standard should not allow Koh on the court. Kagan, while a liberal is sufficiently mainstream to warrant an opponent. Ditto for the former Stanford Dean.

"conservative and libertarian" law students should eat shit and die

Sc-Alito is a joke. he would have gone down in FLAMES if he came up in 07 instead of 06. You neo-conservatives jerk-offs should be legitmately scared that you'll get Koh or worse. It's only fair.

I personally am a left-leaning moderate who supports gun control, abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage, and deference to international law. However, I think 10:47 hit it right on the nose. The range of views expressed at elite law schools goes from Left->Moderate then stops abruptly. I often wish I could hear an intelligent conservative opinion during classroom discussion, but it almost never happens. Of course this isn't because there are no such intelligent views, but because there are so few conservative voices at elite law schools.

I also agree that Roberts and Alito are considerably more mainstream than Koh. Kagan would be a much better nominee.

Memo to Repubs: We don't care what you think. If we take the White House and the Senate we will put whomever we want on the Supreme Court. We don't care what you think.

I think the follow-up comments to my post proved my point that law school students are out of touch with mainstream opinion and 12:16 made the additional point that many law school leftists are incredibly dogmatic and nasty in their viewpoints.

Kagan would be a much better nominee. As for 12:16's comments, it takes only 40 votes to get a filibuster. Given the shabby treatment afforded Alito, who was supremely qualified and within the mainstream, Democrats will never get a Koh on the court. Republicans will never forget the standard Schumer set out.

They would be lucky to get Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor but even that might be a strech at this point. Drew Days III, who had the decency to support Miguel Estrada would probably constitute a mainstream liberal who would get wide support.

Dean Koh is a teacher of integrity and principle. He holds a strong view of justice and asserts it honestly and unfailingly. He believes the most privileged ought to work for the least privileged. And this price of privilege, he contends, is how elite schools should earn the status they are accorded in our society. He has a dim view of working for the big law firms and let’s students know on Day 1. (He drove a cruddy little Dodge Neon.) His outsized personality and his active and personal interest in students are infectious. The vast majority of Yale Law students I know have marched off to biglaw after commencement and could not personally embrace every position that he has staked out, but we have nothing but respect and love for him as a person.
.
If you prefer cold, distant law professors who can break down the technical niceties of the Securities Act, Dean Koh may not be for you. But if you believe in the promise of this country and what the rule of law can do for the betterment of the human condition, I suggest you look beyond the political labels and calculations.

.
In this day in age, when even Ayatollah-mad Iran releases its detainees, smiling, clad in spanking-new suits and gift-bags in tote, while the most powerful, advanced and self-righteous civilization in the world throws human beings (however despicable they may be) in orange jumpsuits into cages on an island for years without a hearing, I reckon a readjustment of the moral compass of this country may be in the offing.

.
At the National Press Club in DC last fall, I attended an alum gathering in DC honoring Justice Alito last. Dean Koh had nothing but the kindest and appreciative words for Justice Alito, who was just as gracious. If there were any hint of ill-feelings on the part of the latter, it was saved for Justice Thomas who was not even mentioned in Alito’s catalogue of *all* the YLS graduates and affiliates who have served on the High Court.
.
Lastly, for those who say that Dean Koh is a terrible speaker, I leave you with this excerpt from a speech he made to undergraduates which I attended.

“After I earned tenure, I was asked by my students to start an International Human Rights Clinic, which brought suit against the U.S. government on behalf of Haitian boat people, seeking asylum in America. I was stunned at how many Asians said to me, "Why are you fighting for the Haitians? Why don't you work for our people?" And I would say to them, "Do you mean to say that in the Haitian exclusion, you don't see the Chinese exclusion? In the Haitian internment, you don't see the Japanese internment? In the Haitian boat people, you don't see the Vietnamese boat people? In the Haitian refugees, don't you see Cambodian refugees? In the quest for Haitian democracy, don't you see Korean democracy? If you don't see the principle, then you don't understand the point--that maybe we all came in different boats, but we're all in the same boat now." And it is our obligation, I submit, to offer that welcoming boat to others.”

3:04: Your account of the Alito dinner is just flat false. He could barely bring himself to say anything about Alito -- check the transcript -- one laudatory sentence does not a tribute make.

Moreover, the "speech" he gave there was just a recital of his letter to the alumni. Thanks for taking the time to prepare remarks.

Lastly, at a previous YLS-DC dinner, Koh proclaimed what a great accomplishment it was for a Korean-American to become the dean of YLS ... right after he paid tribute to his parents, both of whom taught at Yale Law, and thanked former Dean Guido Calabresi, noting that Guido wrote Koh a recommendation to (if memory serves) middle school. The sheer perspectiveless obliviousness of it all was a sight to behold.

The comparison between Koh and Thomas is hilarious. Of course Koh is farther left than Thomas is right. Heck, even Kennedy is farther left than Thomas is right.

Justice Kennedy believes, among other things, that abortion and homosexual sodomy are constitutionally protected. The Constitution, of course, says nothing about abortion or sodomy. This is the centrist position, to which Thomas agrees. If Thomas were as far to the right as Kennedy is to the left, he would argue that abortion and homosexual sodomy are so bad that states are constitutionally *required* to prohibit such activities. Conservatives could argue, for example, that abortion violates a fetus's right to life or equal protection. Of course, most conservatives don't make this argument, because unlike liberals, conservatives don't try to distort the Constitution to promote their own policy goals.

Is it really the case that Kagan is less extreme than Koh? I would be curious to hear people familiar with the policy positions of both deans to comment on this.

There is no question that Kagan is more open to hearing different views, nicer, and simply a better person than Koh. For these reasons, conservatives like her, and I would much rather see her confirmed instead of someone like Koh. But is anyone really saying that her jurisprudence would be more moderate than Koh's? Both of them are farther left than any of the current Justices, correct?

if obama wins, don't be stunned by a sunstein pick. apparently they are good friends and sunstein is well-respected across the ideological spectrum.

The Yale Law School held a banquet to honor its alumus Samuel Alito and the Dean was on hand to introduce the Justice. I recounted the episode to counter the impression that I got from reading this blog that the Law School, led by the Dean, was out to slight Alito or the two sides were somehow on unfriendly terms (as is the case, regrettably, with Justice Thomas). Dean Koh picked nice things to say about Alito. I did not write that the Dean was deliving a "speech" or paying a "tribute" to or sounding approval of Alito's jurisprudence. He was merely congratulating Alito and expressing how proud it was for the Law School to have its alum on the High Court. There was nothing in my recollection of his remarks, in content or tone, to suggest the Koh was unkind or mean-spirited. From what I recall the banquet was off the record (I haven't found a transcript), and unless shown otherwise, I stand by the accuracy of my recollection and my post.

That Koh's achievements are notable or that his parents overcame great adversity, most would not dispute. He has at times made mention of them, but never, in my experience, in purposeful condescension. As for the Guido's reference re Hopkins (both are graduates), I was not there but think it was made in jest. If Koh's self-congratulations are your biggest peeve, I won't argue with you.

4/6/07, 1033am:

Your post was laughable. The only explanation I can come up with to explain your post is that you have such limited life experiences that you don’t know the full extent of your ignorance (and thus don’t blush when celebrating this ignorance semi-publicly). The sad thing is that this seems to be self-imposed ignorance of a type that is entirely curable. 4 Conservatives, 4 moderates and 1 semi-liberal? Have you never ventured outside either a community full of union workers or hippies? Your views of the political spectrum are staggering.

Fascists? Obviously a joke (you’re the punch-line). I guess to you everyone not sitting on a politburo congratulating his comrades for their low cognitive skills and reading comprehension seems like a fascist.

The fact that Circuit Ct opinions have become boring might simply be a product of judges actually applying law—one might call this a period of glasnost and perestroika. I notice that the 9th Cir. gets a lot of attention (your proxy for excitement, no doubt) and seems to be the mecca (dystopia?) to which crazies like yourself offer their prayers these days, but they so frequently get overturned that one has to wonder if those justices (and their fanboys) are brain-dead. There are certainly ways in which those judges could advance a liberal position without getting overturned—too bad they’re either too stupid to do so, or choose not to—hilarious either way.

Finally, Koh would make Thomas look dead-center (and even I think he’s a staunch conservative).

I will be the next President. No way this crazy chinaman is getting the nod.. I would consider nominating him to look after my cats but I am afraid he would eat them.