Trustbusters Have
Job Security
The Dec. 14 edition of "Today's Papers" notes a Washington Post report that David
Boies, the lead Justice Department attorney in the Microsoft case, has lowered
the hourly fee that he is charging the government. The column asks whether this
is legal, if Boies' motive was to keep his share of the work.
The
answer can be found in the definitive rhyming opus on antitrust law, R.W.
Grant's Tom Smith and His Incredible Bread Machine :
You're
gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it's unfair competition
If you think you can charge less!
A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion
Don't try to charge the same amount!
That would be collusion!
In short, Boies'
reduction of his fee constitutes unfair competition. Of course, if he'd left
his fee unchanged, that would be collusion, though in this case he'd be
colluding with himself and would eventually go blind.
How's that for legal
clarity?
--Sam Kazman
Washington
Bork and
Mindy
Are there two Robert Borks, as Michael Kinsley
writes in ""? But not just on antitrust. We have two Borks for probably any
subject. Give the man a retainer or the proper ideological cause and he readily
will tailor his views to the needs of the moment.
I interviewed Bork several years ago for my book
The Wars of Watergate . His role in the Watergate affair has, in all
fairness, been badly distorted. Never mind. In our conversation, he spoke very
forcefully against the special prosecutor (now independent counsel) statute.
"You cannot bag a case in the Justice Department," he told me. "Too many
lawyers, who like to talk to too many reporters." He was absolutely right, of
course.
Fast forward to 1994 and beyond. An independent
counsel to investigate President Clinton? Of course. And "Judge" Kenneth Starr
to conduct the investigation? Of course, said Bork, who appears as a regular
cast member in those situation comedies that pass as "talk shows" every night,
vigorously extolling the virtues and honesty of "Judge" Starr.
Kinsley comes close to
the real reason for rejecting Bork for a seat on the Supreme Court. The man has
the intellectual honesty of a hired gun. Which he has truly become.
--Stanley I. Kutler
Fox Professor of American
Institutions
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wis.
First, We Kill All
the Lawyers
I'm sure Michael Kinsley's "Book Bork, Browser
Bork" is right to say that Robert Bork's current posture on the Microsoft
antitrust case represents a departure from his 20-year-old book on antitrust
law.
But since when is a
lawyer expected to actually possess the views he espouses on behalf of his
clients? If the Kinsley Doctrine is that a client can only select a lawyer who
honestly believes in the legal arguments of the client, then Bill Clinton
wouldn't have any lawyers.
--Robert Little
Memphis, Tenn.
Perjury Is Bad,
Smearing Is Worse
Just a quick point on David Plotz's "Dispatch " from the Dec. 9 House Judiciary Committee
hearing.
Plotz writes, "Yesterday I called Lindsey Graham,
R-S.C., 'admirable.' I apologize. ... This afternoon, Graham reveals himself,
and he does it in such a calculating way that I wonder whether everything he
has done till now has been pure performance. As the final speaker on the final
day of hearings, Graham unleashes a 15 minute harangue about Clintonian evil.
Clinton's true crime is not perjury or adultery, Graham shouts, it's that he
planned to destroy Monica."
Isn't the most reprehensible aspect of Clinton's
conduct from a moral point of view the fact that he either orchestrated or
knowingly permitted the resources of his position and office to be used in an
attempt to destroy the reputations of those who have accused him of
misdeeds?
The story of the sexual activity is disturbing,
given the power imbalances between the participants, but the story is a tawdry
one, and most well-mannered people would just as soon not have to hear about
it, especially since the "victim" is not making any complaint.
The lying can be viewed as a natural human failing,
which most people, it appears, are ready to forgive.
Lying under oath is a more serious matter, but it is
more serious for institutional reasons rather than purely moral ones. As the
head of state and a living symbol of a system, which, in the name of justice,
imposes laws upon and claims the right to exercise coercive power over all
Americans, the president has a special duty--higher than that of an ordinary
citizen--to abide by the rules that the system imposes. One of the most
important rules for the whole justice system is the penalty against perjury. It
is only right that Congress should take that issue seriously.
But from a purely moral
point of view, is it not utterly despicable for the president of the United
States to use the power of his office to destroy the reputation of a person for
the sole purpose of ensuring that that person will not be believed when she
tells the truth? Such conduct may not be a "high crime or misdemeanor." It may
not even be illegal. But it is surely a moral abuse of the powers of the
presidency that should not go unnoticed.
--Kenneth J. Tyler
Vancouver, British Columbia
Jocks of the
World, Unite! You Have Nothing To Lose but Your Scholarships!
Jim Naughton's "" has missed the forest for the
trees. He complains that a few powerful schools are aligning themselves to take
a larger slice of the revenues generated by big-time college athletics and
bemoans the small colleges whose athletic programs will be destroyed by
this.
What Naughton has missed is that the entire NCAA
system is corrupt, making millions of dollars off student athletes who can't
even accept plane fare from alumni to visit family.
That's the real travesty
of college sports. Arguing which schools should keep the huge revenues
generated by athletes really misses the point.
--Anthony Lapadula
Redmond, Wash.
Address your
e-mail to the editors to [email protected]. You must include your address and daytime
phone number (for confirmation only).
