My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

« David Cole in the New York Review of Books | Main | Untangling the Debate on Signing Statements »

July 27, 2006


hoya lawya

bravo. very sharp, funny, political humor with an intellectual edge to it. so many of his interviewees either get roasted or, more often, sit there realzing it's a joke but don't have the nerve or wit to join in, let alone toss it back at him. i think you played it perfectly.

Ewa Budz

excellent appearance, i think! i loved the 'props'. kudos.

"Q" the Enchanter

Good use of exhibits.


I was wondering whether there is a reason that Mr. Colbert did not introduce you as a law professor at Georgetown, but rather just as a lawyer.

Eh Nonymous

curious: um, was it relevant where he professes? He was a "lawyer who represented a detainee" - true! - and his institution is quite beside the point. Perhaps you go to Georgetown? :)

I disagree with the (rabid conservative) commenters at Volokh Conspiracy (not all of the commenters; just some of the rabidly conservative ones) who said that

- these were softball questions from a "comic" - they weren't, and he's not

and that

- it doesn't make sense, that there be a 10:1 thank-you letter to hate mail ratio.

Both incorrect.

"How old were you when you realized you hated your country?" can be answered - but only skillfully. Colbert started with the fastball, not low and away but high and inside - watch your ear, Jack!

When you survive the first two fastballs, he gives you a change-up, and you have a chance to make your point. That's his style. If he can get you flustered, that's the way he's going. If not, he'll see how you play to his homespun character. Loving America more than him is a great way to do it.

Re. the favorable letters: the RCCs at VC missed a few steps. First, they think that the Supreme Court incorrectly applied common article 3 to terrorism. That's stupid and wrong, the U.S. is a party, and that's all that's required. Second, they think that when we deny Geneva protections to ANY prisoners, that somehow our current and future enemies will notice that we're saying we only do it for *unlawful* combatants. Wrong, and stupid.

Third, these armchair hawks have either never served, or have forgotten what it's like. Soldiers are professionals. They are risk-averse. They are deeply fond of their country, and rather than die (horribly) for it, they would prefer to make the other guy die for his. They want to see their families again. They want to survive, if captured, and make it home someday.

They know that their best hope, if captured in combat, is that their country has the moral currency to demand that prisoners be treated well. They don't like it when our moral bank account is drawn down, let alone when our checks start bouncing. That's when even our enemies start concluding it's easier and more prudent just to start shooting prisoners in the back of the head.

And it's people who fail to realize that, who really fail to have our troops' best interests at heart.


I enjoyed it when I saw it on TV and I enjoyed watching it again here!

You, and lawyers like you, have restored my Hope in America.

Thank you and Please Keep up the Good Work!


Eh Nonymous:

It struck me as odd that Professor Katyal is introduced as such everywhere I've encountered him, except on the Colbert Report. Certainly it's fairly common to state a person's institution in identifying an individual.

And no, I'm stuck out here on the west coast, far away from Georgetown.


Very nicely done. This alum was very impressed.


Prof. Katyal, first with the Hamdan decision and now an appearance on Colbert (the two have almost equal importance to this recent grad), you brought some hope and pleasure to what was an otherwise bleak summer of studying for the bar exam. Thanks for that.

The comments to this entry are closed.