Why the anonymity?

There is a long history of pamphleteers taking pseudonyms. For example, The authors of the Federalist Papers used the pseudonym "Publius," in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola. You can find a list of pseudonyms used in the American constitutional debates here.

This began as a comment a colleague made during Harriet Miers's confirmation process that my dog had been to court more than she had, which is true. I won't divulge the secret, but she does go to court. This is rather well known.

But, if you read some of my posts, such as where I call Scalia ignorant or Clarence Thomas a "house negro", you will find that anonymity allow me the luxury of not having to be polite. It also allows me just to vent my opinions. I can give my opinion without too much worry about being bombarded by keyboard warriors.

Trust me, the person I work with would love for me to post scholarly articles in my own name, but, as you may have noticed as well, I enjoy being able to be a bit intellectually lazy. Although, unlike keyboard warriors, most legal minds will excoriate my material with useful and constructive comments. Lots of lawyers post blogs to gain attention, but I do this to let off steam and not for other reasons.

Anyway, there are people who know who writes this and do offer criticism. I also have the luxury of being able to answer what criticism I find interesting.

Besides I'm fucked as far as a position on the US Supreme Court goes if any one finds out who writes this shit

Does that answer your question?