lenpgh:sarcasm seems the only refuge of the loosing side??
In addition to Dahlia's considerable shortcomings in anlyzing laws and judicial proceedings (how she made it past the 1st year of law school is an enduring mystery), she consistently comes across as a whiny, immature brat and has never been able to report anything straight, without her bias being not only apparent but shoved hard in the reader's face. And what's worse, unlike, say, Hitch, who slaps his bias on otherwise good analysis, Dahlia's bias is the only thing of substance present in her column!
Here, as always, she has written a lengthy screed condemning an opinion (or in this case, a glipse at what an opinion will probably look like) without offering one whit of legal argument or analysis. Not the slightest whiff. She mentions a few legal principles, but her discussion of them is limited to who on the Court does or doesn't, in her view, look like a hypocrite, and how their views relate to political constituencies around the issue. It's not that her view of the Court is political, it's that she can't seem to grasp that there is anything at all going on there that isn't just political.
But the throught of her head spinning around 360 degrees with spittle coming out of her mouth and smoke her out her ears as she tries to understand something beyond her ability to process is quite amusing. I'll sleep more soundly tonight, and not just because it looks like my constitutional rights are a bit safer than they were last week.
