Demagogue

I've gone through this several times over the past year and a half or so. But every time a competent lawyer takes a careful look at the case, he or she concludes that Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper haven't got a leg to stand on--legally, that is,--in refusing to name the Plame leakers.

Columbia professor Michael Dorf is the latest. His column agrees with what I and everyone else, including four judges so far, have said: the First Amendment doesn't give the reporters the right to refuse to tell the grand jury who leaked Plame's status as a CIA operative. Thus, as I've also said, I would be very, very surprised if the Supreme Court were to hear Miller's and Cooper's appeal, although because of the Court's schedule, it will be months before the Court formally rejects it and the two reporters face jail time.

Dorf goes further and argues that Miller and Cooper (and Novak) shouldn't be able to protect their sources in this instance. In other words, not only is the Court's prior interpretation of the First Amendment clear; Dorf thinks the Court was right.

The crowning glory of Dorf's column is his argument that Houston Rockets coach Jeff van Gundy should be entitled to keep his sources confidential, and that his recent $100,000 fine from the NBA is more troubling on a policy level than is the special prosecutor's insistence that Miller and Cooper testify.