I think this is pretty representative of the myriad problems with that Slate Op-Ed. It argues against the recall and the victim’s statement reading from a very context-less “spherical cow” standpoint where there’s some kind of level legal playing field. It whines a lot about “you wouldn’t like it if the other team used these tactics” and “what are you doing to our sacred institutions” and does a lot of confusing liberalism/progressiveness with democracy/government structures in ways that the amazing Atlantic article* someone linked to recently would find altogether irresponsible.
He makes the argument that electing judges is a bad idea. I don’t disagree. But then he follow that by arguing that is follows that recall campaigns are “even worse” and “setting a bad precedent.” (then goes on to show that the precedent has already been pretty well set, many times over in the past by others, soooo…) Basically arguing that we should be working on longer term, larger structural changes rather than having to fight dirty in a dirty system. This just rings to me as a “go slow, don’t rock the boat” argument that can only be made by someone who doesn’t really grasp the immediacy and severity of the situation.
*ETA: Yes, the one @daneel listed below
looks like @wrecksdart had posted it in a few places
