O.K. your were right and Mea Culpa on the “anonymous” part. Noted. The author is not named.
However, the author does name and quote his/her source material, and explains what they think about it. Their arguments can and ought to be addressed on their own merits, regardless of who the author is. It is not the identification of an author that brings intellectual honesty to an argument, with its sources.
So yes, it would be nice if the blogger on the Federalist site identified themselves. However, I accept their arguements on there own as valid.
Maybe they are doing like the authors of the orginal Federalist Papers did in their submissions to the press using made up names. They did so because they were well known, had followers and opponents in the political class and wanted their arguments to stand on their own. The anonymous writer on this piece from the Federalist may be some such person in today’s context. Keeping their personality out of the argument.
That “personality” issue goes both ways.
Shouldn’t we be able to know who it is making these accusations? What baggage did they bring to the issue? Where were they on Monday morning?
Do you realize that there are two sides to every argument, and sometimes people do make judgements seemingly against our beliefs, but for good cause in the overall scheme of things. What if Kavanaugh noticed a broad interpretation of a case might actually hurt our cause long term, despite seeming like a good thing at the moment?