• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Thought Defense Companies Were Macho? Think Again | Main | D.C. Bar Honors Lawyers, Inaugurates President »

June 25, 2010



The gratuitous mention of Gen. Boykin's religion is disturbing, and is obviously meant to send a disparaging signal to readers. Imagine if, when referring to testimony unrelated to religion, the author of this post referred to a witness as "an irreligious Jew" or a "heretical Buddhist," or even referenced a witness's homosexuality. It is unimaginable.

David Ingram

Thanks for the question. I have updated with more background, as well as with some additional news on General Boykin's testimony.

Stephen Diaz Gavin

Why is General Boykin's religion relevant to the article?

Stephen Diaz Gavin

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad