As a law clerk, you spend a lot of time reading legal briefs. Typically, the moving party will have an opening brief. The opposing party will then respond with (appropriately enough) a response brief. The moving party will then get the last word with a reply brief. For more complicated issues, there are even more briefs, usually called sur-replies.

As a law clerk (and, for that matter, a judge) you often experience your views on the ultimate issue flipping back and forth with each brief. You think the argument in the opening brief is solid until you read the response; the response is persuasive until read the reply, etc. Your job is to cut through the back and forth and figure out which side got the better of the argument.

Of course, it’s not always like that. Sometimes you read the opening brief and it is so obviously flawed that you don’t even need to read the response. You do anyway, of course, because that’s your job, but such arguments only get weaker with each successive brief.

When I heard that the Huffington Post was accusing Sarah Palin of plagiarizing an article by Newt Gingrich, I was immediately interested. I quickly found and read the article, and can say, after a single read and without having searched for any response by the Palin camp, that the accusation is a non-starter. It’s an obviously flawed opening brief.

The problem? The HuffPo admits that Palin referenced the Gingrich article she was supposedly plagiarizing at least twice in her speech. Once at the beginning of the discussion, and once at the end. HuffPo’s argument seems to be that she then quoted from the Gingrich article between those two acknowledgments without revealing that she was quoting.

Even if that were true, that’s not plagiarism. If you are trying to steal someone else’s words and ideas, you don’t start and end the discussion by acknowledging the real author. Moreover, judging by the examples HuffPo gives, Palin wasn’t quoting Gingrich; she was paraphrasing him. HuffPo doesn’t point to a single sentence that she “lifted” from Gingrich, though she did parrot some of his words and phrases. It sounds like she had recently read the article, was impressed by it, and was trying to share her impressions with her audience, giving Gingrich full credit for his ideas.

I’m sure that if I take the time to read Palin’s response (which will surely follow in the coming days) or do my own due diligence (like read Palin’s speech in its entirety), HuffPo’s argument will fall apart even more. But, frankly, since I’m not a law clerk anymore I don’t have to do that.

Motion denied.

The One had his first press conference as President-Elect today. I’m docking him for his performance.

I’d love to rate him based on his comments about policy, but I didn’t hear any. So, I’ll rate him on some style points instead.

First, he called on every major news organization, except Fox News. That was petty and classless. If you can’t show a little good will less than 72 hours after you won the Presidency, then you are a very small person.

Second, he kinda, sorta took a shot a Nancy Reagan with his comment about talking to dead Presidents by seance. I have a few issues with that one. Nancy Reagan is an sick old widow–leave her alone. And he confused his occult references. Nancy was into astrologers, not seances. It was, in fact, Hillary Clinton who hired a New Wave guru to help her “channel” Eleanor Roosevelt (while Bill was in the next room doing a different kind of “channeling” with Monica, et al.). But in fairness to Obama, he did call Nancy later in the day to apologize. I don’t think he meant anything by it, and he showed class in apologizing.

Third, Governor Jennifer Granholm as an economic advisor??? If she helps Obama do for America what she did to Michigan, then this time four years from now I’ll be blogging about President-Elect Palin and Vice President-Elect Jindal.