Judy, Judy, Judy...

A judge orders Judith Miller of the New York times to the slammer for refusing to reveal her sources in the Valerie Plame case. Being a journalist, Judith invoked the 1st Amendment in her defense, but the judge didn't bite. Good for you, Your Honor!

Just a few points since it's late and I'm tired and I'm still at work and I'm cranky:

1. Unlike Martha before her, Judy is not going to Camp Cupcake, but to a DC jail - which will be a very good venue for her perceived martyrdom as it is more accessible to press people like her; chances are too, that she won't be anyone's bitch

2. Contrary to cries of journalists all over the world, Judy's case is not covered by the 1st Amendment as ruled by SCOTUS in 1972:

From Branzburg v. Hayes, et.al.
The First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement he makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source or evidence thereof. Pp. 679-709.

3. Judy will proudly endure this incarceration like a journalistic croix de guerre, knowing that the benefits far outweigh her 4 months in the tomb: book deals, gratitude from her White House sources, maybe even a movie contract! What could be a better poster child for freedom of the press than a woman who'd rather spend time in jail than break her word? Sounds honorable in principle, but very doubtful all the same

Her Hotness Delia Gallagher, being a journalist herself, probably knows all too well the ethical and moral dilemma posed by this situation. Fortunately for me, this is one of those things that are clear as day: whoever Judy's source(s) was/were broke the law and committed treason. Not worth going to jail for.

Yeah, Delia, I feel the same way...