Does not this law professor understand that there is no logical connection between the validity of arguments that “some” made against the Dixie Chicks five years ago and the validity of the arguments that are currently made against Obama by a great number of Americans, of whom the Dixie Chicks critics are a small subset? Does he not grasp that each argument stands or falls on its own merits completely apart from the merits or demerits of arguments an individual has made in the past?
Apparently not.
