Good job authoring a glib and nonsensical post that will likely anger (or at least annoy) people on both sides of the issue.

Seriously, dude. You need an editor. You need someone to rein in your judgment. In between items that people like and care about -- Supreme Court clerks, bonus news, firm and judicial gossip -- we get your flip views on abortion, lame celebrity reports, and weird, migraine-inducing allusions to your love of all things right wing. This site would be great if it were more disciplined. People don't come here because they want Gawker or Power Line or your take on abortion -- which, I'm sure you'll agree, is a complicated issue that people on both sides take seriously.

Also, while the "royal we" generally doesn't bother me, this was a terrible application of it.

CN: I think posting about ridiculous lawsuits is perfectly within the domain of a legal tabloid. Obviously, this fits the bill.

Sounds like you're just upset because Lat's conservative and you're used to getting your news from Jon Stewart.

The only people I can imagine who would disagree with Lat's assessment of this case are conservatives who would love to require Planned Parenthood to warn women that they are killing a "complete human being." What part of his assessment, exactly, do you disagree with? The part at the top where he says he's not entirely unsympathetic to pro-lifers?

Chill out, CN, Lat was just reporting on a lawsuit that has the same _legal_ merit regardless of your opinion on abortion.

This case reminded me of a case from the Superior Court of New Jersey in April 2006, called Acuna v. Turkish (16 page PDF, Docket Nos. A-4022-03T5 and A-4023-03T5, April 7, 2006), where a woman sued her doctor for failing to get her informed consent for an abortion procedure when she thought that an embryo was an existing member of the family.

Not an issue of "agree" or "disagree," and not one of "chill out," either. Here's the problem: this site is great when it sticks to its target audience and issues (see above: SDNY courthouse follies; firm bonus matches) and a maddening headache when it launches into dumb stories about Courtney Love or reprints inane, non-law related e-mails about whether Katherine Jean Lopez is good. It'd be nice to have a site that has focus and was more like Dealbreaker and less like a read-what-I'm-thinking today MySpace blog.

As I think I made explicit in my first comment, this post's serious problem was tone more than any conclusion -- although I highly doubt anyone cares one way or the other about Lat's views on an issue as complex as abortion. A simple, "Posted without comment" would have sufficed, or maybe a little subtlety and self-control. Instead we get some throwaway reference about being pro-life, followed by mockery of the plaintiff, followed by aspirationally somber "public policy" suggestions. It's a total mess.

I say this not to be a jerk but as someone who legitimately appreciates much of the site and the difficulty of finding a steady stream of content. But man alive, at least twice a day ATL seems to suffer brain freeze. I say that as a friend.

CN: What part of the word "tabloid" do you not understand?

Am. Heritage Dictionary defines "a newspaper of small format giving the news in condensed form, usually with illustrated, _often_sensational_material" [Emphasis added].

Seems that Lat's post is well within this definition. If you don't like, don't read. You can always read about your "issues" (since when is bonus news an issue?) on GA or other swill. I agree with anonanon, chill out!

If by "sensational" you mean lapses in editorial judgment, then good point. It's pretty clear that I'm not bashing the site. I think it does a good job when it sticks to its strong suits, and I appreciate that.

The strand of argument that says you shouldn't read something because you have a critical opinion is sort of insane. There's a difference between critical feedback and flaming -- "Lat, you can do better," as opposed to, "Regina, you're a flaming moron, albeit one with a dictionary."