Gordon's politics seem to be surfacing with his update backhand at Paul Krugman. Perhaps Gordon should take a crack at challenging Krugman's content.

Shag, I might have taken the bait, but the NYT has placed Krugman's column behind a $50 wall. I used to read Krugman's books, and I enjoyed that Krugman. But he is gone, replaced by a demagogue. My feelings about his column have less to do with his politics than his willingness to select and distort facts in his single-minded pursuit of Bush-bashing. If he were funny, like John Stewart, that would be another matter, but Krugman manages to be simultaneously unfair and boring. Ann would be better. What am I saying? She is better!

I try to make a habit of disagreeing with Ann Althouse as infrequently as possible, but on this matter I respectfully dissent, as I did in the comments section of both the post linked above and her follow-up blog post. What is still not addressed is the same thing that always seems to be missing when people advocate the use of foreign law (or, oppose, as it was put in the British press recently, "America's disturbing legal insularity"). Questions of whether it should be merely pursuasive or authoritative are moot until the central question is satisfactorily answered: why is foreign law relevant?

I have seen no really pursuasive rebuttals to any of Justice Scalia's criticisms of the use of foreign law. Justice Breyer's blithe comment that "we might just learn something" fails dismally in the mustard cutting stakes for want of an explanation as to what is supposed to be learned, and what relevance it might have to American jurisprudence.