Lemieux has written a column for The Week claiming that the plaintiffs’ case is “a legal argument that approaches 9/11 truther levels of insanity” — a witlessly incendiary claim he comes nowhere close to supporting. (He does establish that it’s an argument he finds unpersuasive.) He uses a column of mine as a foil. Too bad he didn’t grapple with my reference to Roger Gregory, the most prominent judge to have disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument so far — but also someone able to see that the argument is a strong one. See this brief for a thorough response to the arguments that Lemieux and others make.