Spitzer Also Edited The Harvard Law Review

Business,Constitution,Democrats,Ethics,Justice,Law,Natural Law


(The title of the post is a tad unfair to Obama, I know. But editing The Harvard Law Review is clearly no litmus test for purity of intellect or ethics.)

One thing is for sure, Spitzer did not forge his political and fiscal fortunes by means of voluntary exchanges on the free market. The Spitzer piranha didn’t give law teeth; but used bad law to bite business to the bone.

Daniel Gross of Slate had this to say back in 2004:

Spitzer made maximum hay out of the “New York State’s Martin Act. The 1921 legislation, as Nicholas Thompson noted in this Legal Affairs piece, gives extraordinary powers and discretion to an attorney general fighting financial fraud. He can ‘subpoena any document he wants from anyone doing business in the state,’ make investigations secret or public at his whim, and ‘choose between filing civil or criminal charges whenever he wants.’ Extraordinarily, Thompson notes, ‘people called in for questioning during Martin Act investigations do not have a right to counsel or a right against self-incrimination. Combined, the act’s powers exceed those given any regulator in any other state.’”

Spitzer embodied abuse of power. As a government goon, he was an extortionist extraordinaire. “He didn’t simply indict. He issued press releases. When Spitzer published a press release detailing a shocking betrayal of trust by” this or the other “of Wall Street’s most trusted names,” the company would lose billions in market value in a matter of days and would quickly settle with the thug.

I know I’ve defended the naturally licit actions of scum such as Scooter Libby against naturally illicit prosecutions. And yes, I support the decriminalization of prostitution (but not its moral elevation). Yes again: I believe Spitzer’s funds are his to move about, and that his transactions were perfectly licit. So call me inconsistent on this count, but this character is so evil, contemptible, and uncontrollable (and nauseatingly hypocritical), I consider it a mitzvah that he has been removed from office and taken DOWN, if by unjust means.

I want to see Spitzer’s name live on in infamy; he ought to ultimately die disgraced, and if we lived under a just legal system, be prosecuted—but for his crimes against innocent members of the business community. Unfortunately—and I guess I’m nothing if not consistent—I’m with Alan Dershowitz on the following count: Spitzer ought not to be prosecuted for his moral failings. Although I’m filled with schadenfreude at the spectacle of Spitzer, there is no case to be made for his prosecution in libertarian law.

More later on Spitzer’s ho—or rather on the manner in which media have infantilized the girl and turned her into a victim.

6 thoughts on “Spitzer Also Edited The Harvard Law Review

  1. Robert

    Ilana’s righteous indignation is a breath of fresh air among today’s endless moral relativism! Keep up the great work!

  2. sshaun

    I think it’s a shame that Spitzer could be pressured from office because of his relations with a hooker. Virtually all the men that I know, who have money to spend, have similar relations.

    I don’t know much about the man, but I was told that he used to crack down on prostitution rings so karma has worked its magic (just a figure of speech, I don’t believe in karma).

    If his dealing with business were as brutal as portrayed in Slate, his takedown has been long overdue.

  3. Leonard

    As a man who enforced prostitution and money laundering statutes, it seems to me Spitzer is estoppelled from asserting his natural liberty on this issue. So, you should not feel bad about him getting hoist on this particular petard. [Very interesting comment. I agree with you. Btw, is it not “estopped”?–IM]

    That said, I agree with you on all the particulars. It’s a damned shame he is not being destroyed for his flagrant abuse of the law, not this minor misconduct.

    One argument I’ve seen that’s worth consideration is the idea that public servants should be held to the law even when it is stupid, because to break the law opens them to blackmail and possible abuse of the public trust.

  4. Leonard

    um, … yes, Mr. Google shows you are correct. Not a word I use often. Ever, really, save maybe once on a blog.

  5. Anonymous

    Spitzer must be a democrat as I never seem to see his party affiliation mentioned. If he were a republican I suspect the “trail leaving slugs” of the MSM would be shouting REPUBLICAN in every other line written.

  6. Myron Pauli

    In the limit of an infinite number of laws, many of them contradictory, we are all technically “guilty” of some state-manufactured crime. Thugs in prosecutorial garb like Spitzer or Gonzales or Reno can throw people in jail for whatever reason – “lying to the government” is my favorite – as if the government does not lie to the people! We have a government throwing hundreds of billions of agribusiness subsidies to Archer Daniels Midland and trillions to the Iraqi Black Hole of Moslem Liberation while they put my money “on hold” when I move a few thousand {Weimar-inflated} dollars from one bank to another! Add in the hypocritical War on Drugs and one can see why Reverend Jeremiah Wright does his Jeremiahads of Black Power Ranting.

    We are, sad to say, not CITIZENS of the State but rather its SUBJECTS and potential suspects who must prove that we are not terrorists when we move money around, earn money, start a business, fly on an airplane, etc. Spitzer is merely another “data point” on Lord Acton’s observation about “power corrupts”.

    …. However, I fail to understand why ALL these {power hungry but pathetic} wives stand by their men instead of performing a bris { circumcision } like Lorena Bobbitt did.

Comments are closed.