Matt and Judy and Ted and Clarence and Antonin and Sandra and Ruth and...

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]


How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc