Academic legal blogger Jeff Cooper takes on academic legal blogger Glenn Reynolds in this lengthy post about legal interpretation. As someone who’s done a lot of work with interpretation theory myself, I’m interested in the world of meta-interpretive theorizing — or (put another way) I’m interested in examining the way people’s ideas about how interpretation works translates into real world expressions of those ideas — in the form of public

Jacob Sullum and Mike Lynch, both writing in Reason (and both of whom I admire greatly), hit the slippery slope in full stride in defense of Jose Padilla’s civil liberties. I take the force of their points, I really do (Sullum objects to preemptive arrests, Lynch to “government abuse of power”) — but still I’m not sold. Padilla’s association with Al Qaeda, his unwillingness to cooperate with authorities, his (alleged)

VodkaPundit thinks he knows his Caeser salads. Pshaw, I say. Just pshaw. As Charles Austin points out in VP’s comments section (and I concur), one shouldn’t even think about coming to praise the Caeser unless one brings with him a tin of anchovies as tribute. Not anchovy paste, either. Real filets. Also, you want to use raw egg yolk and lime juice in addition to your Worcestershire sauce and garlic.

I’ve been pretty outspoken about my support for the Padilla detention. As far as I’m concerned, the “enemy combatant” designation is apt and is backed up by Supreme Court precedent. Padilla had legal recourse under the designation — his attorney filed a habeus corpus petition on his behalf — and so his detention is not denying him his Constitutional rights in the way many people are suggesting. Yesterday a federal