In my view SCOTUSblog has been, and remains to this point, relatively free of the partisanship that is characteristic of most blogs. I consider than a point in its favor and hope it will continue. However, I have seen a few indications of a drift including, but not solely, the decision to post the particular item at the top of this thread.

One indication is simply the choice of words used to describe things. The controversial NSA surveillance program, for example, can be described in a variety of ways. The one time that the program is referred to as a “terrorist surveillance program” that phrase is put in quotes so as to distance the writer from the phrase, as if to say “I certainly don’t think that is what it is.” On the other hand, the same program is referred to as a “domestic spying program” without quotes. Whether monitoring of a call between the United States and a location in, e.g., Iraq constitutes “domestic spying” is a point in contention. A person trying to be neutral would choose a different phrase or distance himself from it with quote marks or with a qualification such as “so-called.”

Another indication is the choice of what is newsworthy. Anyone reporting news must necessarily sift through a large number of potential stories to select a few that are sufficiently newsworthy, reliable, and pertinent to the theme of the publication to warrant selection. Partisan position can influence that choice. The most notorious example was the decision of Dan Rather and 60 Minutes to go ahead with the National Guard memos story despite the dubious nature of both the documents and their source. It is painfully obvious that if the partisan implications of the story had been reversed, that story would never have been broadcast.

The “village green” story says that a handful of people in Vermont have passed a resolution with five disputed premises calling for the impeachment of President Bush. That seems to me to be very low on the newsworthiness meter and to have only a very tangential connection to the theme of this blog. The fact that it made the cut, in my opinion, adds to the other indications of a partisan drift.

Lest there be any doubt, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with a blog having a slant to one side or the other. Nearly all do. SCOTUSblog’s relative neutrality has been one of its unique aspects, but if the sponsors of the blog wish to abandon it, there is certainly their choice to make. In my own humble opinion, though, that would be a net loss to the blogosphere. Those who wish to read attacks on President Bush have a smorgasbord of choices already. A blog that stays focused on the Supreme Court and on matters with a direct and substantial connection to present and likely forthcoming cases, and which maintains a substantially neutral tone in its reporting, is a unique and valuable contribution. I would be disappointed to see it end.

I suppose it would be, if anyone had stated such a proposition, but no one in this thread has. Are you perhaps referring to something stated elsewhere?

My own earlier comment regarding partisanship referred to a general trend I have noticed in SCOTUSblog of late and not to this post in particular. It is a trend that I would think is obvious to any regular reader of the blog and which I hope is a temporary aberration.

Because I have actually read and understand Article III section 3 of the Constitution of the United States.

In addition, the legal question you pose is moot, because its factual premise is false.