More Major Mistakes at the Supreme Court

In this post, I mentioned that the dissenters in D.C. v. Heller, the gun rights case, made some fairly eggregious factual errors. But the Court's errors last term weren't limited to that one case.

In another controversial decision, it was the majority opinion that got the facts wrong, and now the Washington Post is calling the Court out on it:

WHEN A NEWSPAPER gets its facts wrong, it's supposed to publish a correction, and, if someone's reputation has been harmed, a retraction and apology. It can be embarrassing, but the occasional taste of crow probably does more good than harm to the media's credibility.

But what if the Supreme Court not only blows a key fact but also bases its ruling, in part, on that error?

Read the whole thing.

"Where the Candidates Stand on Energy"

The Free Press has an excellent summary.

Meg

234 Miles Per Gallon?!

That's impressive.

"Is There Legitimate Doubt About Obama's Eligibility to be President?"

This sounds far-fetched to me, so I would think that the Obama campaign could easily clear it up.

So, why haven't they?

UPDATE (via Instapundit): This whole things seems like much ado about nothing.