Duh - duh...

... duh - Dumb!

The Ez gets some feedback on his "work".*

It's too late to do anything about Krugman (got that prize hanging out his back pocket and all...), but Klein can still be countered on the facts, I think.

Pushback is good. First Amendment guaranteed too, for those of us still respecting da docs -- you know, that over 100, Constitution and all...

* As an immigrant's child myself, he gets no pass for newcomer status here, not knowing that it wasn't written around 1910 or so. ("over 100 years old") Particularly when opining on legal issues.

And I LOVE the idea of a Constitutional fact showdown between (in this corner...) young, self professed wonk Klein, and in this corner: Sarah "she's a joke!" Palin.

Personally, I'll take Sarah for $500 please. (Even with the working-class college degree behind her name, and the understanding that I'm no fan, just neutrally analyzing here...)
------------------

* My favorite comments:
Rick Caird Today 01:34 PM
Call:

I have argued many times that Ezra Klein is a child. He thinks like a child, he writes like a child, and he acts like a child. Ezra really is not complaining our 200+ year old Constitution is not understandable. His complaint is that it is perfectly understandable and that he does not like what it actually says.

hurtin1 Today 01:36 PM in reply to Rick Caird

Response:

I think metaphor is unnecessary. He actually *is* a child. He's still eligible for his parent's health insurance under Obamacare.

And, the wonk himself responds. Of course, the Constitution is binding. Even if it is a stuffy old document and nobody except the self-professed wonky experts like himself know what the darned thing is saying anyway...

Posted at 3:57 PM ET, 12/30/2010
Yes, the Constitution is binding
By Ezra Klein This morning, I gave a quick interview to MSNBC where I made, I thought, some fairly banal points on the GOP's plan to honor the Constitution by having it read aloud on the House floor. Asked if it was a gimmick, I replied that it was, because, well, it is.

Suggestion Mr. Klein? Slow down, and spend a little time picking which areas you want to specialize in. Lobbyists may have the luxury of plugging their positions quickly, and with little thought as to what they're saying, but until you get out of the news-covering business into the policy-plugging paid lobbying job?

Your face, not your brain, appears to be your top moneymaker right now, kiddo. (A regular gender groundbreaker like that.) Now, I know there's untamed ambition at play here -- grab all the media showpieces that will have ya -- but maybe slow it down a bit and learn your craft before you go practicing on the public airwaves? Whichever craft it is you eventually decide to settle on practicing...

Another suggestion?

So if I was unclear: Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment.

Go earn yourself a law degree before expressing your legal expertise on screen. That might help you better understand how the Supreme Court works, if you study precedent and actually undertake the formal study to understand some of these ideas. It's not always consistent surely (see Roe v. Wade), but it's definitely not a crapshoot.

And while it's not easy, for sure, understanding how legal minds think and understanding why they decide as they do, this is just another pretty, but overgeneralized statement for the masses to feed on: "...it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment."

Funny how much clearer legal issues become when you actually, you know, study in the field, consider what the legal minds are arguing, then think for yourself and stop buying the "it's all politics now!" way of counting Supreme Court votes, currently en vogue in the young (under 100! only 26 in fact...) wonky pundity liberal media expertise talking heads, and amongst some of the lesser legal analysts in the professorial circles too.

(There's one over on Volokh -- no names please -- who continually plugs the notion that counting to 5 is what makes something Constitutional or not. Nope, the document stands, for all to read... which is why, once inititiated, despite your outcome preference, the Roe decision is such a twisted mess, relying on penumbral thinking to get you where you wanted to go all along... Similar to justifications behind the recently passed, constitutionally questionable healthcare law, except whereas one was "Keep your laws off my body", our liberals have now aged as a population (the young Kleins of the world notwithstanding) and now embrace the everybody-in! mandate, while the conservative cry today has become "Keep your laws off my pocketbook, please!")

Confusing sure. But impossible to understand, and unclear as to what's binding or not? Nope, just another example of lowering the bar. Next time, decline the appearance and free up the slot for some better-qualified expert who better understands the issues at play? Economist, journolist, now legal advice opiner... this is what happens when your ambitions outrun your expertise.

Best stick with plugging the recipes. And your fellow economist wonks, naturally. Annie Lowrey, is it? (In joke: for months, Klein was referring to his lady love as another independent economist when citing her opinions on that then-healthcare bill. After the Journolist brouhaha, a commenter suggested he start telling readers of their intimate association when citing her economic work on his blog. Journalism 101 -- if your sources are tainted or there's any appearance on non-neutrality, you disclose to the readers your relationships. I think, after Journolist, he finally "got" that.)