I really try not to read the comments in other blogs about me. In the early days I did care, but I learned that it's generally not healthy.
But when I saw that Volokh Conspiracy had a
short post by Jonathan Adler about Elizabeth Warren -- VC's first foray into the issue, I believe -- I did read.
It's still not healthy. But one comment (by a commenter, not Adler) caught my eye, referring to a sentence in my
original post about Warren's law license problem:
I recommend that people view Jacobson's posts with skepticism.... For example, Jacobson's very first post says "Warren’s Texas Bar information indicates she is not eligible to be licensed in Texas." In fact, she holds Texas bar membership and has been paying dues, as an inactive member. If she were not eligible to practice, upon payment of the higher dues required of active members, those very words -- "Not Eligible To Practice in Texas" -- would appear on her profile page as it now does for others.
Hmmm. I have been meticulous in the facts I have reported about Warren. It is true that Warren now is shown as "
inactive" and has been inactive since 1992, a fact reported
by Rob Eno the other day.
So where did I get the idea that Warren was "not eligible"? In my original post, I didn't include a screen shot of Warren's entry, just a link to the Texas Bar page which now says "inactive".
But I did take a screen shot prior to my first post, I just didn't include it in the post. Here is the screen shot taken on September 21 showing that Warren was listed as "Not Eligible To Practice In Texas":
I did not take a screen shot of the "click for detail" link on this page, unfortunately.
But here's what the same page looks like now using the same link:
In the time period since my first post appeared, Warren's status on the Texas Bar page changed. And address information has been removed.
