Comments On My Posts:

Friends, something seems to be awry with my ability to enable Comments on my posts today. On my last three posts, and one yesterday, I haven't been able to get PowerBlogs to allow me to Enable Comments. Please know that I'm not trying to foreclose Comments on any of those posts (Eminent Domain, Illinois Wine Law, or CAP), it just seems to be a glitch of some sort. I didn't realize the problem until a reader just emailed me--as you can see, on our page the Comments button appears, but for some reason it won't take Comments once you click on it. I'm trying to fix it.


Naturally, Comments seem fine for this particular post!

The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who divide the Volokh Conspiracy. Clearly, the network anomalies afflicting you are naught less than divine retribution for the divisive CAP posts.
1.12.2006 5:38pm
Bruce Cleaver (mail):
1.12.2006 5:39pm
arbitraryaardvark (mail) (www):
I'm going to use this space for my comment on the CAP post - seems like the right place for it?
I don't think the issue is whether or not Alito is a crypto-bigot.
I'm going to make an analogy to the Miers nomination. Miers was widely criticized as unqualified, although it would be hard to dispute that she's more qualified than 99.44% of people on the planet. There's some kind of really high standard at work there. The issue is not, is he a bigot, it's, is he Mother Teresa? Or rather, is he super-ultra-sensitive to the concerns of the downtrodden and oppessed (other than the unborn.) That he used his CAP membership to signal something to a conservative administration (even if he wasn't actually very involved, and even if the group wasn't the evil it is being portrayed as) is a clue he might not meet this very high standard.
Several members of the court (T. Marshall, RBG, SDO'C, Thomas) have compelling personal histories that foreshadowed that on the court they would have a concern with the little guy and doing justice, to offset a lack of such concern by the administration. If they can depict Alito as possibly a bit stodgy and insensitive, by the standards of Berkeley and Cambridge, that's enough to be disconfirmable (to some.) It doesn't need to be shown that he's on the take or has a white robe under the black robe - just that he's not quite yet reached sainthood. I personally have no strong feelings about the guy. I think he'll be confirmed on a party-line vote. I don't think he's so wonderful it's worth deploying the nuc-u-lar option, or so awful that the D's will sustain a filibuster very long.
1.12.2006 5:59pm
This was on the Drudge Report Monday (via Opinion Journal)

One Democrat Hill staffer involved in their strategy declared, "Put a fork in Scalito [sic]. It doesn't matter that Alito didn't write it, it doesn't matter that Alito wasn't that active in the group, Foote wrote it in CAP's magazine and we are going to make Alito own it."

I know Drudge is taken with a large grain of salt sometimes, but I think since this was written Monday before the hearings started that it has an extra imprinture of credibility, since it is exactly what the Democrats tried to do. But didn't succeed. I don't think their is any doubt that the Dems tried to smear Alito by a very tenuous association.
1.12.2006 7:37pm
David Matthews (mail):
"super-ultra-sensitive to the concerns of the downtrodden and oppessed"

Sorry, but that seems neither necessary nor sufficient for membership on the Supreme Court. It is something I want of my parish priest and my girlfriend, and value highly in my city councilman or my congressman, but, for a judge, I think the more applicable criterion is "super-ultra-sensitive" to the laws and the Constitution.
1.12.2006 8:00pm
Splunge (mail):
Damn, I can't leave a comment. I'm so upset.
1.13.2006 4:11am