Del. Daniel Cox reacts to my recent opinion piece with his usual degree of temperateness and accuracy:
On accuracy, for example, he baldly asserts that his constitutional claims failed “based on one point: mootness.” But as I noted in my piece, the Fourth Circuit explicitly carved out only his religion claims to dismiss as moot, while separately upholding as correct the district judge’s dismissal of all the rest of his claims on grounds unrelated to mootness. Does he even read the decisions he loses? (More here and here.)
As for Cox’s vicious invective against me personally, it hardly deserves to be dignified with a response. Seriously, who can read this sort of thing without concluding that this man is utterly unfit for public office?