adam wrote:
that's chicken shit
edit
of course the problem with sitting on the fence is that you get shot at by both sides
i still think you're wrong but my language was inappropriate and i apologise for that
the question arises about the extent to which any of us can be in complete command of the facts and the extent to which we make calls based on faith -- be it faith in a jury, or an "expert", i'm not convinced that since the time of Leonardo anyone could be in complete command of the facts because for centuries the realm of knowledge has been too big for one person. Therefore we take things on faith however the extent to which this is achievable, case by case (literally in this instance), is something to ponder.

I think you are making an exageration here. Its not as if we're talking about an issue where there is a perponderance of evidence in one respect and I'm unwilling to engage it out of some sort of agnosticism. The split on this issue is almost exactly on partisan lines, and the difference is not about policy, but about which side is full of a bunch of crooks who shouldn't be trusted. My faith based inclination is that they both are, and that doesn't lead me anywhere in terms of having an opinion on their little spat.

RE: The Volokh Conspiracy - Was the Libby case political?