I don't know how many of you got to listen to my appearance on the Jim Babka show tonight, but here's my take on how things went. First, I was absolutely stunned by how bad Larry Klayman was. I mean awful, stink-up-the-joint horrible. Totally unprepared, ignorant of the facts of the case, thin-skinned, cranky. It was really a pathetic performance. Every argument he made save one was an ad hominem, and the one that wasn't was completely false. Rather than discuss the actual legal record and whether Judge Greer ruled incorrectly on anything in the case, he just ranted about how judges are arrogant and power hungry. Rather than discuss any of the expert testimony from neurologists on Terri's condition, he just dismissed them as "morons" and part of the "culture of death." Guardian Ad Litem Jay Wolfson's report was irrelevant because he's a "moron", he doesn't have to answer Judge Birch's arguments because - stop me if you've heard this before - judges are arrogant and power hungry. And don't bother bringing up Justice Scalia's opinion in Cruzan about the limits of Federal authority because Scalia is "not his favorite judge" and "isn't very bright." Everyone but him is a moron, so why would he even lower himself to actually answering specific arguments?
At one point, I pointed out that he owns a law firm and asked him if he argues that way in court. When presented with expert testimony in a case, does he tell the judge that he doesn't have to address any substantive claims by the expert because he's a "moron" or just part of the "culture of death"? Or does he even bother to address the judge at all, since judges are all such bad people? His answer was that I was attacking him personally. How on earth did this guy get to be such a popular talking head on TV and radio, for crying out loud? Repetition of catchphrases is not an adequate substitute for reasoned argument. By the end he was reduced to just saying repeatedly, "Ed has faith in the courts to do the right thing, I don't." But of course he doesn't argue that all courts are wrong in all cases, but is arguing that this court is wrong in this case. In order to establish that argument as reasonable, he has to actually show that the court erred in its legal or factual reasoning somewhere. But this is not something he attempted to do. It's a bit like telling someone that they shouldn't bother listening to their doctor because sometimes doctors are wrong. And this strikes him as a rational argument to make? How absurd.
The one thing I regret was that we had so little time, particularly at the end. When I mentioned that I had been in a similar situation with my mother 8 years ago and had to pull the plug, so to speak, because she had made her wishes clear that she would not want to live on life support with brain damage, he pompously declared that that was the difference between us, that he wouldn't pull the plug on his mother no matter what because he's for life and I'm for death. He apparently thinks his position is actually the moral position in that argument, but nothing could be further from teh truth. He is taking exactly the position that Terri's parents took in testimony before the trial court, that they would not allow Terri to die naturally under any circumstances, even if she had all her limbs amputated and even if they knew that she would want to die. That they cannot see how repugnant that is speaks volumes about their moral myopia. Other people do not exist for your pleasure. You do not own them, they own themselves, and if they do not wish to be kept alive as a meat puppet for you to use as a prop in your life, you are violating their rights and robbing them of their dignity by doing anything to the contrary.
The host, Jim Babka, called me after the show and was very happy with how things went. He really thought I did well and is interested in having me back on the show in the future. Perhaps we'll do a show on evolution and creationism; I could probably think of a few things to say on that subject. I forgot to ask him if I could have permission to make an MP3 of the show available, but I will do so and hope to be able to let people who didn't have a chance to hear it live download it from my site. More news on that as I get it.
- Log in to post comments
Ed,
Sorry I missed it. Don't be surprised by the weakness of the arguments on the other side. For the religious zealots, it's a good versus evil kind of thing, and they know the evil when they see it, so there's no need to discuss it rationally. Everything there is faith-based - even the logic.
This seems to be the right's new favorite shibboleth--"arrogant and unaccountable judges." Never mind that in the Schiavo case the judges at all levels stuck ultra-scrupulously to the law, despite many holding personal beliefs that almost certainly would have had them outside the hospice holding a "Save Terri!" sign. No, they ruled in ways the right dislikes, therefore they must be "activist judges."
Tremendously well put. It's not surprising that the same "right-to-lifers" who would deny a woman dominion over her body in life would do the same when her life was at its end.
I'll bet the host thought the show went well. Ranting draws listeners. That's why your opponent on the show is on the air so much.
"You know, on my program today, I read in detail the finding of a noted Nobel Prize-winning neurologist named Dr. Himmelfarb." - Pat Robertson, March 31, via http://mediamatters.org/items/200504020001
You recall the old adage: If you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law; if you don't have the law on your side argue the facts; and if you don't have either on your side, attack the other lawyer. The last is apparently what Klayman was doing.
Actually, there's a new version of that old line:
If the law is against you, argue the facts.
If the facts are against you, argue the law.
If the law AND the facts are against you, argue for intelligent design.