Mr. Lichtman's comments deserve a reply. Comments are good. Personalization of the argument, like Lichtman does, is a substitute for analysis. First, this was a real life case, not an academic exercise for a political science class. Practicing law and being a judge on a day to day basis requires constant decision making. Just by using the phrase "negligently unaware" flags the criticism by Lichtman as being outside valid legal critique. It may sound good, but it is not a legal standard and really is meaningless to judges and lawyers who do this stuff everyday.

Second, the judges decision and comments were based upon the breach of contract issues. There was more to this than the First Amendment concerns of NBC. While not as sexy as First Amendment stuff, it is a valid argument and there were facts to support the claim. There was no contest from NBC on the issue it changed its corporate mind. The issue was the interpretation of those facts.

Third, Lichtman refers to sloppy work of the courts in Nevada. This is the most confusing comment. The entire case was considered and resolved in a very compressed time frame. It is not like sitting in a chair at the Poli Sci Dept at Shippensburg U in Pennsylvania. Because of the timing, everything had to move very fast. So the sloppy criticism rings hollow, especially coming from an academic. While the academic has its place, it is still an ivory tower, and that is not an unfair criticism.

The SC in Forbes noted that candidate debates are of "exceptional significance" to the electoral process. Should the Courts just sit around and ask for guidance from the law professor or decide the problem as best as they can under the circumstances. I think Judge Thompson and the justices at the Supreme Court all did a good job and the system worked as it should. It is easy to take pot shots, but do it on the merits.

What was the harm here? That the issue got decided? Got decided quickly? Or is it just that neither court mentioned the Forbes case? The complaining by the reporter and the law professor is artificial and without substance.

Go ahead and agree or disagree with NBC or Kucinich, but calling the work sloppy, under really difficult time pressures, shows the lack of knowledge of the professor about what happens in court. To use Lichtman's phrase, it is "mindboggling" that he would even make his comments about procedure.

Finally, I read Lichtman's web site, and his creds, and I know judges on the Nevada Supreme Court and have tried cases in front of a number of them. While Mr. Lichtman holds himself out as a constitutional expert, which is really great for someone who teaches 20 year olds in a poli sci class, he has a long way to go before being as qualified as any of the judges in this matter.

I filed the complaint and represented Mr. Kucinich in Court. Normally, I would just read the comments, but the points made in the article deserve comment. It is an interesting reaction from some of the media, such as the LV Sun article, when there is question raised about the behavior of the media, itself. There tends to be the feel that some in media regards themselves with a religious reverence, and when someone does not pray at the foot of the alter, they just don't understand why. Mr. Eckhouse creates the impression that First Amendment law in this area is clear. Try reading the line of Forbes v. Arkansas cases, and see if anyone comes away with a clear understanding. The reality is there are various interests in conflict in this area of law.

Mr. Eckhouse interviewed me yesterday and my comments were that the winner was the Court system and the citizens of Nevada. The entire process showed that the system is responsive, dealt with an important issue, and resolved the issue in a timely manner. While I was on the Kucinich side of the case, I told Eckhouse I thought the decision was judicious and fair, and well reasoned. I think there were arguments which were valid and favored Kucinich. The point of all this is that it was presented in Court, reviewed by the Supreme Court, and decided in a rational manner. What more do you want? The criticism of the system in this circumstance is not well thought out.

Debate, and in this case, legal debate, of public policy issues is healthy. It allows us to understand why we do the things we do and provides a valid review of the law and how the media operates.

The Court system exists so that issues like this can be resolved in a legal manner. The reporter should have understood that everyone took time to address the matter, and everyone responded appropriately. I get the sense of some sort of herd mentality from the article, as if everyone should just drone on and never question the position of the media. NBC's conduct here was not exemplary, it did invite Mr. Kucinich and then withdrew the invitation, after he agreed to be in Nevada for the debate. As far as I could see from research there was no other case like it in the First Amendment case law. The Supreme Court disagreed with that, but it was a valid question.

One legal professor at UNLV law school noted the in the media the contract issue was reasonable. There are differing opinions, and there will always be differing opinion on the issue. But the concept of the article that the court system in Nevada was a loser because of this is simply a naive and superficial conclusion.