In the September 25 Los Angeles Daily Journal, Paula Mitchell, the anti-death-penalty crusading law clerk to Ninth Circuit Judge Arthur Alarcon, has a remarkable letter to the editor. The LADJ is not available online to nonsubscribers, but I have uploaded a scan of the letter here. (Pretty sure that's "fair use.")
The letter has two parts, one responding to a Sept. 14 article about Judge Alarcon's and Ms. Mitchell's follow-up law review article, and the second responding to a Sept. 17 op-ed by James Bozajian opposing Proposition 34.
In the first two paragraphs, Ms. Mitchell takes umbrage at the implication that she (a federal law clerk) is engaged in a partisan effort arguing on one side of the initiative controversy. In the remainder of the letter, she makes a partisan argument on one side of the initiative controversy.
The letter has two parts, one responding to a Sept. 14 article about Judge Alarcon's and Ms. Mitchell's follow-up law review article, and the second responding to a Sept. 17 op-ed by James Bozajian opposing Proposition 34.
In the first two paragraphs, Ms. Mitchell takes umbrage at the implication that she (a federal law clerk) is engaged in a partisan effort arguing on one side of the initiative controversy. In the remainder of the letter, she makes a partisan argument on one side of the initiative controversy.
The letter is written in the same shrill tone as the two law review
articles. For example, in the fourth paragraph she says sarcastically
that Bozajian "conveniently failed to mention" the not particularly
relevant fact that Judge Alarcon wrote an opinion vacating a stay in the
Robert Alton Harris case. Then in the sixth paragraph, she "refutes"
Bozajian's point about the people who mucked up the system leading the
repeal effort by listing Garcetti, Woodford, et al., but she
"conveniently fail[s] to mention" that the manager of the campaign is none other than the head of the ACLU's anti-death-penalty project, Natasha Minsker.
Is it fair argument for an advocate for one side to leave out Minsker while listing the others? Maybe, but she just got finished telling us she was engaged in neutral education about the facts and not advocacy for one side.
The second part of the letter conclusively proves the allegation so vehemently denied in the first part.
Is it fair argument for an advocate for one side to leave out Minsker while listing the others? Maybe, but she just got finished telling us she was engaged in neutral education about the facts and not advocacy for one side.
The second part of the letter conclusively proves the allegation so vehemently denied in the first part.
Leave a comment