Obviously, they're overused. Obviously, they can create a justifiable suspicion that the reporter is being used. And then of course you have to consider whether the reporter knows s/he is being used and is going along with it, figuring that the access to power and the little bit of temporary gloss that rubs off is worth the price of compromising journalistic ethics by playing the role of hand-puppet for someone with ulterior motives.

And then you have a reason to question whether that reporter should be a reporter at all.

Lately we've been seeing a lot more of reporters' efforts to explain the granting of anonymity, usually something along the lines of "not authorized to comment to the media" or "due to the sensitivity of the issue." As if these are a priori justifications. They're not - not unless the reporter tells us more about the source, with or without the source's permission.

Thus, the reporter could tell us that the source spoke on condition of anonymity "due to the sensitivity of the issue," and then add what the reporter knows or suspects: "A source who has had poor job evaluations from Sotomayor describes the judge as 'dumb and obnoxious.'" Or "A lawyer who lost a case in Sotomayor's court describes the judge as 'dumb and obnoxious.'" Or some such.

You might think such a biased source shouldn't even be used, but there may indeed be some substance to the source's statements despite his having poor relations with Sotomayor. But putting the statements in context would help the reader reach his or her own judgment on the quote and the article as a whole.

The source isn't identified (poor job evaluations and losing lawyers are pretty common) so can't complain. The source would not be blindly quoted as an authority - that authority is conditional, and blanket anonymity without context amounts to disinformation. The reporter's ethics and professionalism are challenged, and the public's right to know is impaired.

I meant to say that I agree with Glenn on anonymity - it should be rare and totally justified. At this point though, unjustifiable anonymity seems so embedded in journalism that I have to think this is what j-school students are being taught.

My suggestion is meant as a bandaid, I guess - a context for the anonymity would be better than what we have now, and maybe it would serve as a step toward the return to proper journalism. I'm not holding my breath.

Obeying the Constitution and our laws is not "rigid ideology," nor is it a demand of the "left." It is what makes us America and Americans. Yet Obama seeks to categorize those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law as extremists, and the media go along, since that's what the news media do all the time anyway.

If Obama can't bring these prisoners to trial, it's likely because any evidence against them is so badly tainted that an American court would throw it out.

Instead, Obama has decided to act as judge and jury himself, convicting these prisoners without trial, which is a hallmark of a totalitarian state. What's the difference between this and, say, Zimbabwe or Pinochet's Chile? It is so baldly illegal that it's hard to believe that it's a constitutional law professor who is making such a specious, dishonest argument.

This is not a left-right issue, and people who believe in and support the Constitution are not extremists, though Obama is insultingly portraying them as such. In a meeting with civil libertarians (aka constitutionalists) the other day, he was told he was adopting Bush's policies. He got very angry at that, which is a telling response - anger when you're told the plain truth about yourself is not a sign of a good leader, especially when it's a truth that people on both the right and the left are saying about your behavior.

Obama has just told us he intends to violate the Constitution. THAT is extremism. What does that say about his character and honesty?

If Obama holds prisoners indefinitely without charges and trials, that is both unconstitutional and illegal. Under the Constitution, it's also impeachable.

Heinrich Himmler, announcing the opening of Dachau.

Is this really accurate? After all, judges not only decide whether a law is being properly followed and applied; they also often decide whether a law is, well, legitimate - constitutional, discriminatory, vague or clear. When it comes to a law, "to question its plain terms" is one of a judge's most crucial functions, something our freedoms often depend on. So why would Sotomayor say that and why would it be cited so approvingly?