The Volokh Conspiracy

Ponnuru's defense of the Kyl-Graham brief is silly. But I guess when he says, "The Kyl-Graham brief’s language is potentially confusing," that is as close to an admission that the brief was deliberately misleading as we are going to get from him.

In general, having been stomped in the legislative history debate, Ponnuru now seems to be falling back on the argument that whatever the petitioners and Justice Stevens did must be worse, because the text is plainly against them. I'd actually say the exact opposite, but it doesn't much matter--I also take this shift in arguments as indicative that Ponnuru knows he has lost his legislative history debate.

Ponnuru is a slippery and often dishonest writer who is a little to partial to being vicious to his adversaries. But, on the Ann Coulter theory of marketing, I suppose that's why he gets the play he does.

It's odd, because the time or two I've seen him on TV, he has struck me as ill-at-ease, nerdy, but like a basically shy and decent guy who's aware of the limitations of some of his positions and of the fact that people he disagrees with aren't evil. Strange that he'd be so much less likeable on the page, where in theory he's had time to measure and consider what he's saying.