In his dissenting opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut -- the landmark 1965 case that struck down a law banning the distribution or use of contraceptives -- Justice Potter Stewart asserted that "[a]s a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable." This argument was odd, since it was made in favor of the statute's constitutionality. After all, if a bill can't be fairly enforced without rendering large parts of the Bill of Rights a dead letter, this would seem to concede the due process and equal protection arguments against the law (which were essentially the grounds on which the law was challenged, and struck down).
THE INEVITABLE EXCEPTION: As a quick follow-up to Ann's post, I note one case where fashion trivia about a male candidate was an issue: the endless clown show surrounding Al Gore and "earth tones." (There were some additional rings in the circus, such as Chris Matthewsbabbling about Gore's deeply significant choice to wear three-button suits: "Is there some hidden Freudian deal here or what?
THE DEAN OF (GREATER) PRESCIENCE. I concede Matt's point that alleged crazy moonbat Howard Deanforesaw the consequences of the Iraq War and -- more importantly -- the exceptionally weak case for the war with considerable (and consistent) accuracy and detail, more so than Gore.
ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE. Ezra points us to Julian Sanchez's excellent rebuttal to Megan McArdle's claim that critics of the war were just a wrong as the supporters. For my part, it's somewhat difficult to respond to McArdle's post, since not only does she argue strictly from anecdote but she also declines to specify most of the allegedly erroneous anti-war arguments. Adding on to Sanchez, it's worth identifying some arguments that were, in fact, in circulation at the time: