I'm verging on outrage, but I can't say I'm surprised that the



's lawsuit trying to undo


's yesterday by

As the judge wrote, "

The Sun

seeks the declaration of a constitutional right that neither the Supreme Court nor the 4th Circuit has recognized." While my heart has solidly been behind Calvert Street in this case, my head, if not agrees with, then understands Judge Quarles' decision. Yes, Ehrlich's bar on columnist Michael Olesker and Annapolis bureau chief David is incredibly dumb, politically and factually--the things he barred the two for turned out either to be not true or not the blamed person's fault--but I've heard no rock-solid argument that it is illegal. And, since the lawsuit seems bound to be dismissed by an even higher court after

The Sun

appeals, it means that officeholders elsewhere will happily install similar bans against their least favorite reporters, whereas before they may not have felt so bold. But who knows? Maybe the 4th will decide in the newspaper's favor. I hope so.

Anyway, here's the

, the

, and the

, via the