Just one thing before I call it a night. I see that our very own District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal has been arguing the state's case in the sodomy case that's before the Supreme Court. Apparently, he didn't do a very good job:
After watching the arguments, longtime court reporters wrote analyses comparing Rosenthal's performance unfavorably with that of his much more seasoned opponent, Paul Smith.
The New York Times' Linda Greenhouse wrote that the argument "proved to be a mismatch of advocates to a degree rarely seen at the court."
Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers listed among low points in Rosenthal's argument his response to a question from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about whether Texas bars gays from adopting children. (It does not.) "I don't know," Rosenthal replied.
Henderson wrote that Rosenthal's response "underscored how poorly his argument was going," and that the DA "had a difficult time articulating a rationale for the law."
USA Today's Joan Biskupic called the arguments "surprisingly lopsided," noting that Rosenthal "struggled" to defend the law and "had trouble answering questions about what harm the 30-year-old statute seeks to prevent."
Even Justice Antonin Scalia, who along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist made a mighty attempt to bolster Rosenthal's case, squinched up his face at one point and admitted, "I don't understand your argument."
UPDATE: I'll never catch up on all the reading I missed while on vacation, but thanks to Ginger's comment, I found this post, which in turn points to this post, both of which neatly sum up why the law that DA Rosenthal is trying to bolster has no basis in rationality. Go check them out.Posted by Charles Kuffner on March 30, 2003 to Legal matters | TrackBack