Yale Law School Conservatives Defend Harold Koh
Last week, we told you about the surprisingly strong attack against former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in the New York Post. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate also tried to debunk some of the attacks leveled at Obama’s pick to serve as the Legal Adviser of the State Department.
Is defending Koh the new liberal cause célèbre? Hardly. The latest group to stand up to the right-wing spinning of Koh’s record is a group of Yale Law School conservatives. In a statement given to Above the Law, a group of conservative students and Federalist Society members had this to say about their former Dean:
He is also an honorable man and eminently qualified to serve. He is a widely respected lawyer and academic who has thought deeply about international law and served with distinction in both Republican and Democratic administrations. He has a passion for public service that he passes on to students of all political views. Dean Koh is one of the brightest legal minds of his generation, a credit to the profession we look forward to joining, and an able and effective public servant.
It’s unlikely that those trying to tear down Koh care about what a bunch of law students think. But the kids are coming out swinging:
As conservatives, we do ourselves no favors when we adopt a shrill tone or make dishonest arguments against such people. For instance, the claim that Dean Koh would apply Sharia law in U.S. courts is simply absurd. While we were not present when he allegedly spoke on the subject, we are thoroughly acquainted with his views on transnationalism and find it impossible to believe that he would say such a thing.
We’ve heard from Yale students that disagree with Koh’s views, and even with the way he ran the law school. But people don’t seem to think that the man is crazy or a danger to American sovereignty. Maybe in some small way these students are helping to tamp down the rhetoric over this particular nominee.
Read the full statement after the jump.
YALE CONSERVATIVE LAW STUDENTS — STATEMENT — DEAN KOH
In the past few days, conservative pundits have filled the airwaves with vocal opposition to Harold Koh’s nomination as Legal Adviser to the State Department. As conservative students at Yale Law School, we have long disagreed with Dean Koh’s views on international law, but we are both surprised and disappointed by the virulent tone and false claims we are hearing from some of Koh’s opponents. In response to these deceitful and incendiary attacks, we feel compelled to say a few words on his behalf.
Dean Koh has been very supportive of conservative students and conservative student organizations. He has mentored conservative students, participated in Federalist Society events, and gone out of his way to include conservatives and their ideas in classroom discussions. Dean Koh has always been not only forthright and honest about his views, but also fair and solicitous of conservative opinions in public and private.
He is also an honorable man and eminently qualified to serve. He is a widely respected lawyer and academic who has thought deeply about international law and served with distinction in both Republican and Democratic administrations. He has a passion for public service that he passes on to students of all political views. Dean Koh is one of
the brightest legal minds of his generation, a credit to the profession we look forward to joining, and an able and effective public servant.
As conservatives, we do ourselves no favors when we adopt a shrill tone or make dishonest arguments against such people. For instance, the claim that Dean Koh would apply Sharia law in U.S. courts is simply absurd. While we were not present when he allegedly spoke on the subject, we are thoroughly acquainted with his views on
transnationalism and find it impossible to believe that he would say such a thing.
Turning distinguished and dedicated public servants into boogeymen is nothing but dishonorable, and it has no place in American conservatism.
(47) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Hell no! We won't Koh!
First bitches.
Hi. I think you mean "cause célèbre."
"Cause celeb"?
Self-serving conservatives at YLS who want a bit of publicity wrote this letter. Why do they think anyone cares what they think? I suppose the author of the letter thinks this will help a future job search.
Remember when all those Yale liberals jumped to the defense of Justice Alito during his confirmation hearing?
Oh wait, no. They did everything they could to undermine his confirmation.
Well, at least one side tries to act with some principle.
b o r i n g
I'm glad they did this. Depending on the stakes, principles may be more important than winning, and winning here is not worth sacrificing principles. Let scumbags at Salon do that...
Also, Elie, you are goddamn fat fucking idiot. "Cause celeb"? That is the single most embarrassing mistake you ever made, and you've made many.
I'll offer a truce. If Koh can come up with a different publicity picture, I will stop caring that he thinks Sharia has any place outside 7th century Bumfuckistan. Honest to god, is that even his own arm in that picture? Is it a prop?
Just say No to Koh!
Man, I wish I had free editing. Page hits and comments probably even help advertiser rates.
#2 - If you're looking around the table and can't identify the bitch, the bitch is you.
Cheers,
#1
Glad to see that other conservatives with personal knowledge of Koh are following Ted Olson's lead.
Why would YLS students have any special knowledge of Alito? Ridiculous comparison. These students are standing up for Koh based on their personal acquaintance with his words and actions as dean, in particular his treatment of the conservative minority at YLS, and saying that he was fair and inclusive. (Conservative students at Harvard made similar statements about Dean Kagan.) The situation would be analogous for Alito only if he had been Yale faculty or admin, which he of course wasn't.
I try to like Dahlia Lithwick since Lat is such a big fan, but every time I read her stuff I get so annoyed. None of it is any good. Its like she is trying to get crowned most overrated legal commentator on earth (and that's a crowded field of competitors).
Why are there no names attached to this statement? How can we be certain it was written by actual Fed Soc members?
One needn't view this post in a conspiratorial light. I'd simply prefer that those who support this submission stand up and be counted. Elie, can you add something more to your post in this regard?
The man isn't crazy, but he is a danger to American sovereignty. How about some coverage on this Transnational Progressivism, Mystal? Surely you can look up some of Koh's papers and can point your browser over to the Hudson Institute for an opposing view?
Might be a little more honest than merely attempting to marginalize Koh's critics.
6- You're so right.
Sincerely,
Rove, Cheney, Limbaugh, Hannity, & Beck
Elie - how come you didn't work "perfect storm" into the damn article? What a hack!
I'm guessing the religious base of the Republican party would regard most of these self-styled Yale conservatives as flaming liberals.
Harold Koh = uber-Mormon
NO. WE KILL. WE GO IN. WE KILL<8
Koh is NOT fair to conservatives at yale. Koh put up with conservatives and befriended two or three each year so he could be sure they would support him (which apparently the two or three did by writing a letter of support).
The "debate" over Koh is a diversion. Republicans plan to stonewall the nominations of Koh and Dawn Johnson unless Obama promises to suppress the 3 incendiary torture-authorizing memos that the administration was planning to release in response to an ACLU lawsuit.
Dont you mean "the" conservative at Yale? Whoever that poor bastard may be.
17,
Youre right.
Sincerely,
Pelosi, Reid, Olbermann & Madow
lol. What an oxymoron. Yale Law Conservatives. Give me a break.
15 here again.
Elie, c'mon
LOL at Elie suddenly caring what conservatives think - but only when they're defending a Communist. This site has become an EPIC FAIL.
I think the one thing that conservatives and liberals can agree on is the fact that Elie's father should have pulled out. Is there a more worthless piece of carbon-based matter in the universe? Reading a piece by Elie is like reading The New Republic, if TNR was written and edited by retarded rhesus monkeys.
Koh sucks. Not because he is a radical liberal--and he certainly is a radical liberal--but rather, because YLS produces very little of value to anyone. With the exception of the occassionally enjoyable jurist, the end product of YLS is some of the worst attorneys and most incompetent law school professors on the planet.
6, I'm trying to remember when somebody in the mainstream accused Alito of wanting to impose a radical wahabbist-version of Sharia, like the bozos at the Post, Fox News etc did.
to 29,
No, they (the bozos at NYT, NR, etc.) just accused him of a radical right-wing agenda to undermine their social agenda
Agree with 15. This sort of letter is completely worthless without a list of signatories. Without that list, there's no way to know how well the letter actually represents the views of the community that the authors purport to represent.
So 30 - you are admitting that the wack-koh wingnut attacks are different in kind - I guess it's due to "principles"
As far as I can tell, Fed Soc at YLS is run by people who wanted another line on their resume, not sincere conservatives.
30 here,
How is that "admitting" a difference in kind or degree? Perhaps you mean 'suggesting', implicitly or otherwise?
All I did was suggest the liberals did the same thing.
Why not call out 29 on his/her dubious claim? Why can't liberals be hypocrites?
"No, they (the bozos at NYT, NR, etc.) just accused him of a radical right-wing agenda to undermine their social agenda"
NR = National Review, doesn't it? I assume you mean TNR.
How have the NYT's and TNR's concerns about Alito been proven invalid? Has he actually NOT been a conservative jurist hostile to their liberal agenda?
There's a big difference between attacking someone for his actual political views (Alito wrt conservatism), and attacking someone for views he doesn't even hold (Koh wrt sharia). You may disagree with the NYT that someone's political views are valid to bring up at his confirmation hearings, but I would hope everyone agrees that it's always and everywhere wrong to *lie* about someone's political views.
Then again, I'm not surprised at confusion about this from ATL commenters, who thought that AutoAdmit folks outed for stuff they'd actually written were somehow getting it worse than women who'd been lied about.
FUCK KOH AND FUCK YALE.
Wow, you thought their criticisms of Alito were devoid of fear-mongering, slanted views of his agenda? Has he in fact proven to be "radical"? By your logic, it is a lie when a conservative exaggerates, but a valid assertion when a liberal smears.
As for Koh, the Post article made unsubstantiated , hyperbolic claims, but the evidence for Koh's true views exists. (I should therefore like to know why, then, IF you know anything about the guy, you think them to be completely off the mark).
No such thing as a conservative at Yale. There is only left and far left.
Everything the conservative(s) said about Koh is true, but that doesn't make him a good choice. He is a very nice man, highly intelligent, and a respected scholar. He is also profoundly anti-American, rejects any notion of American exceptionalism, and does not believe in national sovereignty. Is this the guy we want advising the State Department?
Kutner was a nice man.
It is perfectly possible and even legally mandatory under certain circumstances that a US-court has to apply Sharia, if the rules of conflict of laws require so. Just ask the litigation-guys at WGM. They had a case where the US-court applied Sharia to interpret a joint-venture contract between a Saudi corporation and a US corporation. Sauid-Arabia does not accept choice of law clauses in contracts, and law in Saudi-Arabia is practically 99% Sharia, as practically no other statutory law exists. So when doing business with Saudi nationals, the contract is governed in fact by Sharia law and a foreign court has to use Sharia if the choice of law rules point to the laws of Saudi-Arabia as the governing law.
It's fine to see that the level of discourse in the USA remains at a standard the Saudis or China would be proud of - but nowhere in the West.
That anyone should even feel the need to defend Dean Koh (who I have met) says a lot about the sorry state of civil discourse in the USA. These detractors are people with no sense of shame. Their defenders by argument immediately join their ranks.
My only comment to the Yale Conservatives: perhaps you should take more notice of the company you keep.
Mike Norton,
Sagonne, France.
It's fine to see that the level of discourse in the USA remains at a standard the Saudis or China would be proud of - but nowhere in the West.
That anyone should even feel the need to defend Dean Koh (who I have met) says a lot about the sorry state of civil discourse in the USA. These detractors are people with no sense of shame. Their defenders by argument immediately join their ranks.
My only comment to the Yale Conservatives: perhaps you should take more notice of the company you keep.
Mike Norton,
Sagonne, France.
It's perfectly legitimate to look at Alito's record and say, "I think he would retrench federal legislation that prohibits child labor," since such laws are based on the post-New Deal reading of the interstate commerce clause that Alito had not always supported in his statements. Was there anything said about Alito in the NYT or TNR that was based on "This one dude says he heard Alito say that he has a five year old slave laborer"? Or was it all based on Alito's actual rulings, statements, etc?
"As for Koh, the Post article made unsubstantiated , hyperbolic claims..."
And that's what people are criticizing here.
LIBERALS are just upset that a minority isn't a flaming lefty. That's all. He's an escaped slave and must be punished.
Democrats = party of racism.
No, it was not all based on Alito's record. Duh
stop criticizing #6. Don't you know that Alito was the secret dean of Yale before being nominated to the SCOTUS?