Ted Olson argues in the WSJ that the Supreme Court ought to take up Matt and Judy's case "[w]hatever the Court may decide about a First Amendment or common-law evidentiary privilege for confidential sources," just to, you know, "perform a service by taking the case and clarifying the law." He's just another selfless former public servant, that Olson fellow. Of course, another service that the Supremes would provide, "[w]hatever the Court may decide"? Keeping his* clients out of jail for a year or so.

* "Mr. Olson, former U.S. solicitor general, represents Time Inc. and Matt Cooper."

Supreme Confusion in the Plame Case [WSJ]