A newspaper should tell the truth. Unfotunately, you can't trust the Post to do so.

Bet some of the Post staffers really hate working for a outfit so afraid of criticism that it shuts down a blog when the organization makes a mistake. Then they claim its because people are being uncivil, but can't back that claim up. Oh yeah, the original lie is proved to be a lie as well.

hey elliotg – point me toward a New York Times story online that allows readers to post comments. Point me to their version of Live Online discussions. Give us a link to an online chat with the editors of the Gazette newspapers in the area, or their Technocrati links to what bloggers are saying about their stories.

I'll wait.

As a WaPo reader outside of the paper's circulation area, it's obvious to me that the Post goes further than almost any paper in the country to interact with readers on the Web. If you disagree, why?

Elliott, just shut up. You're ruining the experience for the rest of us.

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/allforums/index.html

ElliottG if you're still here, why not comment on the Maryland blog.

Well, it seems to me that the Maryland Constitution offers no specific direction on what is or is not an impeachable offense. I suppose if you can get 1/2 of the House of Delegates to agree and 2/3 of the Senate then they can have Murdock removed. I think it's foolish to think that's a possibility. The political calculation that suggests it might be strategically beneficial to introduce the idea escapes me as well.

The constitutional issue is more basic here. Some members of the Republic Party seem to be willing to place a target on the back of any Judge who disagrees with their social agenda. I say lets give the Judicial Branch their right to be a co-equal branch of government and not attack individual judges. These free for all attacks on individual judges and decisions are just plain dangerous. If other branches of government want to exert their powers and authorities fine, but lets cut the personal attacks.

The question is where are these strict constructionalist conservative Republicans getting the idea that they can impeach Judges for making judgements. I mean, you don't like a judgement, you appeal! That's why the higher courts have multiple judges, so one lone nut, doesn't set precedent all by his lonesome. GOPers just prove their intellectual dishonesty when they attack judges, I mean how does it further the liberal agenda to stay your ruling as soon as you make it? That sounds like a reasonable person making a judgement based on their charge, but realizing that they have not been given the public confidence yet to make such a sweeping change in the public square. I think legislators that talk about impeaching judges for rulings they don't like should be the one's removed from office for attacking the constitutional principle of separation of powers!

As the MSBA noted in its Statement, the judge has not done anything that would bring her within the ambit of impeachment.

Probably a more interesting political question is whether any of the three leading candidates for Governor would elevate her to the Court of Appeals tomorrow if she was the only person recommended for appointment! !