Educated Guesswork

Actually, the article only quotes anonymous sources that claim he has resigned because of the warrantless wiretaps. You would think that if he was indeed protesting, he would be a little more forthcoming about that detail.

Impartial judge, or a partisan operative? Some interesting reading about Judge Robertson over at PowerLine:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012628.php

And it's not like anyone would ever think that the WSJ editorial page or PowerLine were partisan hacks....

More theater, guys. 1) This judge was appointed by Clinton, who did similar wiretaps. 2) This judge will be replaced by a Bush appointee, so how does his resignation actually do ANYTHING in support of his cause? 3) I've never, ever, EVER heard of a judge resigning "in protest" before. It simply isn't done.

"And it's not like anyone would ever think that the WSJ editorial page or PowerLine were partisan hacks...."

EKR, so what if they are? Are you saying that anything they say can be summarily dismissed because they do not hide their political leanings? If so, what's to stop that charge from being leveled against anybody just so the points do not have to be argued?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Powerline's record of hackery is bad enough that I don't feel the need to investigate every time they assume someone of being on the other side.

Given that line of logic, shall I assume you will no longer be quoting the New York Times?