http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202557415962

:-)

But back on topic, all else being equal, which of these would be the best?

I would think an en banc confirmation with a denial of the motion to grant a writ of certiorari would be ideal. That way dissents would have to focus on the facts at hand rather than on the decision to “not hear it” and we’d have no wider imposition of an unpopular right from an unelected body.

On the other hand: who knows? Perhaps we’ll never be “ready” as a country to accept gay marriage as my argument presupposes; in that case it’d be pointless to hope that this case doesn’t appear before the SC. Plus the SC doesn’t necessarily have to impose anything. This might very well be the best chance we have before the high court for a long time… at least until those DOMA cases work their way up.

By the way — it is common usage to put words in another language (French, or Latin, for example) in italics. Names of ships may be italicized or underlined. Books titles should be underlined.

Grammatically and stylistically, the quotation marks are 100% correct for the reasons given. Also, the use of “Nazi” might have been reduced to the lower case (“nazi”) to connote a colloquial usage of the word, rather than a direct reference to the actual National Socialist Party.

At the end of the day, anyone in journalism will tell you that comprehension takes precedence over the strict rules of grammar. While I hate to see a coarsening of the written language arising from laxity, I also realize we don’t need to write as though it’s 1880, either. (By the way, I was always taught that contractions should be eschewed in formal writing, but that’s style, not grammar). Oh, and the only thing more annoying than an incorrect grammar nazi is an incorrect grammar nazi with a bad case of political correctness. If I want to use the term “grammar nazi”, I certainly will, and I don’t need people who can’t figure out quotation marks questioning my intelligence, education, or morals in an effort to discredit an argument — which is precisely what that little attempt at shaming Ryan was intended to achieve.

Tim, we’ve had many back and forths. I still think y’all (and, for the record, I’m a Yankee — I just love the pronoun that actually addresses the weakness of the Queens English in failing to identify the 2nd person plural) need a copy editor from time to time, especially re: typo’s, but there’s something charming and non-slick about a site that actually has its share of typo’s, and which typically retains its factual failings with cross-out rather than simply pretending something was never said. The only exception to that, in my opinion, would be when you post quotations — given that you are effectively speaking on someone else’s behalf, typo’s in a quotation leave the reader with a question as to who made the error, and that can impact the impression being made of the original source, and that’s not okay.

Alright I’ve said my piece. Time for bed.

No problem, I’m not offended. But I probably would not do differently in a future similar situation.

I assume that most of our readers are not attorneys nor find regular use of the term “en banc”. And generally when I introduce an unfamiliar term or phrase, especially one with a connection to the legal field, I put it in quotes in it’s first usage so as to cue the reader that it wasn’t a typo, but a term with a specific meaning.

This may not be proper grammar; I’m really not sure. But it’s what I’ve become accustomed to in my line of work and it makes sense to me.

Perhaps you can forgive Jim and me if we fail to use proper grammar from time to time. Though we both write a great deal as part of our regular full time jobs, neither of us has a journalistic degree, background, or training. Jim is an engineer and I am an accountant.

Yes, Judge Vaughn Walker, not the other way around. Thanks. It’s now corrected.