Here's why I think Tom Goldstein posted on Lexmark

Without belaboring the topic too much (it's been beaten or nearly beaten to death in the comments on my last post) here's why I think Tom Goldstein posted on Lexmark.

I don't think Goldstein was subjectively motivated by a desire to embarrass Lexmark or its attorneys, even though that was a foreseeable result of his posting. Adopting the suggestion of Goldstein defender "Jack Elsehow," I think Goldstein posted on this because it was related to the Supreme Court and it was "interesting."

I concede it was related to the Supreme Court and was "interesting." But there is much related to the Supreme Court that is "interesting" which Goldstein does not cover: for example, as one commentator has noted, the criticism of the anonymous law clerks who served as sources for the Vanity Fair article which SCOTUSblog hosted for Vanity Fair.

That Goldstein would rummage about the vast array of "interesting" tidbits related to the Supreme Court and post on this particular topic, especially using a "teaser" title focusing attention on attorneys who blew a $100 million case by filing a cert. petition late ("There but for the grace of God") still strikes me as problematic. As no one has disputed, it wasn't related to anything posted earlier on SCOTUSblog; in particular, it wasn't needed to correct an earlier post. It was merely "interesting."

Goldstein's comment of June 19 on my post provides little support for a contrary conclusion, although I certainly thank him for commenting on this blog, and welcome any future comments he might wish to make. "Jill Elsehow" has ably lampooned Goldstein's comment, so there is little need for me to remark further. I agree it is ridiculous to think Goldstein's post on Lexmark can be explained as a product of a desire on his part to help boost Lexmark's stock price by helping spread word of the incompetence of its lawyers in filing a cert. petition late, to ensure word of this reaches those Wall Street traders who read SCOTUSblog but do not read Business Week.

Goldstein's main aim seems to be to leave the reader with the impression Lexmark doesn't mind a post such as his, and might actually like it. I do not share that impression. If such an impression actually has taken hold in Goldstein's mind, then one would certainly look forward to a Goldstein edition of How to Win Friends and Influence People, which would make for interesting reading.

My bottom line explanation is that without given any thought at all to how Lexmark or others would view this post, Goldstein made it simply because it struck him as "interesting," and for no other reason and in service of no other agenda. It was merely a product of poor judgment, not affirmative malice

Why is SCOTUSblog posting about Lexmark and its attorneys missing the cert. petition deadline in a $100 million case?

For my first substantive post I begin with what is, to me at least, a genuine mystery: why is SCOTUSblog posting about Lexmark and its attorneys having missed the deadline for filing a cert. petition in a $100 million case? It recently did so here.

Before reading this on SCOTUSblog, I had not heard of them missing the deadline nor, I suspect, had more than a handful of lawyers heard of it. Because of SCOTUSblog’s wide readership, many attorneys, particularly appellate attorneys at major firms who closely follow SCOTUSblog, now know of this embarrassing incident suffered by Lexmark and its attorneys.

The question is: why? Why is this posted on SCOTUSblog? I’ve looked at the SCOTUSblog posts in the two weeks preceding this one, and it doesn’t seem relevant to anything that was being covered. That is, it’s not information that needed to be set forth to correct an earlier post. For example, SCOTUSblog did not earlier report that the Supreme Court had denied certiorari in the case, and then need to correct that report with the actual facts (that Lexmark's petition had never been filed, because it was submitted after the deadline).

The SCOTUSblog post explains that a reader e-mailed a tip with this information, but that doesn’t explain anything, unless SCOTUSblog reprints everything readers e-mail, which I doubt.

So as best I can tell, it’s just a shot out of the dark about Lexmark and its attorneys blowing a $100 million case by being negligent. Even Lexmark’s opponent, Static Controls, had more class than that in mentioning on its website that the U.S. Supreme Court would not be reviewing the case. It did not even hint at the apparent negligence. See here and here.

There’s no good way to say this without seeming critical, and maybe there’s some good explanation for the post that is eluding me, but I simply don’t understand why bloggers at a firm that at least promotes itself as one of the leading firms in the United States in U.S. Supreme Court litigation would dump on a Fortune 500 corporation and its attorneys for their apparent negligence in failing to meet the deadline for a cert. petition.

Can anyone explain this post? Does anyone think it makes any sense at all? Does anyone think it sheds any light on SCOTUSblog or its bloggers generally? The floor is open. I really don’t know what to make of this post. I hope readers will share their comments, however they view this post, either pro or con.

Nice try, Goldfinger

Nice try, Goldfinger. You're very clever in attempting to link the "Goldstein is an idiot" theme into something relevant to this blog.

Logically, you may well have a point. But personally, I'm not interested. I'm interested in blogging about the substance of the SCOTUSblog posts.

My comments on the comments, and more on my plan for this blog

Thanks for the many initial comments. I'm not going to try to justify this blog, or my anonymity. Anyone who objects should pass on reading it.

Nor am I going to try to summarize or react to all of the comments, positive and negative. Some of them react to earlier comments, and there's a running debate among some of them, so I'll leave it at that (unless I later pick some points out of them to elevate to main posts). I've selected the blog option which makes comments appear on a separate page rather than in a popup window, so anyone interested in reacting to any of the comments on his or her own blog can easily link to the comment page and attack, endorse, or expand upon any comments that are of interest.

No, the point of this blog is not to engage in personal attacks on Tom Goldstein. If people want to assume otherwise, there's little I can do to disabuse them of the notion, so I don't plan to expend energy on it. To the extent it may actually be relevant to analyzing the substance of the posts on SCOTUSblog and its "sister blog," the Supreme Court nomination blog, I do reserve the right to discuss the public record of anyone who posts on those blogs. I have no interest in their private life.

No, the point of this blog is not to belittle the "Anti-Becker-Posner Blog" or, especially, Howard Bashman (I greatly appreciate him mentioning this blog, and if he would kindly tell me where the anti-SCOTUS is located, I would be more than happy to dispatch a correspondent to cover its decisions). Rather, as I said in the initial post, this blog was inspired by a negative reaction I had to some SCOTUSblog posts, plus the "Anti-Becker-Posner Blog" which I saw mentioned on the Becker-Posner Blog itself, plus Howard Bashman's very apt reference to problems presented by SCOTUSblog's recent foray into the Supreme Court nominations area. It's that simple. Yes, I did cut and paste a lot of content from the "Anti-Becker-Posner Blog," but only because I thought it was good content, not because I was trying somehow to belittle it. I plead guilty to being lazy and uninventive. Why waste time reinventing the wheel?

In each post on this blog I'll try to pick out one main point made by a commentator, or one point I've thought of myself, related to SCOTUSblog or its "sister" blog, and throw it open for further comments. Sometimes I'll have no clue why something's posted on SCOTUSblog, and I'll ask for reactions (as in the first post I anticipate making), and sometimes I'll have a definite viewpoint I'll ask readers to either attack or support. As earlier noted, comments on each post on this blog need not be restricted to the subject of that post. Anything related to SCOTUSblog or its "sister blog" (or other "family" blogs; there's now yet another one, a little like those "Alien" movies) is fair game, and (to again borrow a good phrase) sufficiently compelling critiques will be elevated to main posts.

I plan to play this by ear. I don't plan to continue with this if there's little interest. To the degree there's enough interest among readers, judged by the hits and number of comments, I'll try to keep posting. The more readers comment, either here or on their own blogs, the more time I'll spend on it. If there's enough material to keep this blog going (I started it with only a couple posts firmly in mind), it would help to have people willing to work enough on this to turn it into a group blog. If others don't want to help keep it going, it will probably die out within a few weeks, as it should for lack of material and/or interest. I haven't invested much time in this, and don't plan to unless there's substantial interest.

Look for the first substantive post by Wednesday night. Meanwhile, any further comments are appreciated. Posts on this blog may be infrequent, at least at times, so if you want to make sure you don't miss something, rather than wasting time checking in, you might want to set up an RSS feed or arrange to have posts e-mailed to you using NewsGator or a similar service. Or just e-mail me (concowboy AT mailcan DOT com), and I'll do my best to alert you to future posts, or have someone else do it.

Or just ignore this blog if keeping up with it is too much hassle. As to that suggestion, I recommend the brilliantly sardonic "Statement of Audience" which the folks at SCOTUSblog do not seem to have read, and which can be found (with a link to the underlying source document) here, and which is discussed a bit here. Apparently some commentators on this blog think a more appropriate "Statement of Audience" for the SCOTUSbloggers would be this one. I'll try to stay out of that debate.

An Invitation to the Public

This blog is intended to be a community blog. At least one main post each week will be dedicated to something posted on SCOTUSblog or its "sister blog" devoted to Supreme Court nominations (which is promoted on SCOTUSblog).

Anyone who catches any mistake or omission in any post (either currently or in the past) on either blog is invited to comment under the most recent post on this blog that exists at any particular time. Sufficiently compelling critiques will be elevated to main posts. (By commenting on this blog, you give permission for the maintainer to do so.)

Unlike SCOTUSblog and its sister blog, this blog does not censor comments, and commentators are welcome to leave their comments anonymously. Unlike SCOTUSblog and its sister blog, the "Anti-SCOTUSblog" is committed to free and open debate and criticism, even about, perhaps especially about, this blog.

Anyone who is interested in regularly exposing the errors on SCOTUSblog and its "sister blog" is invited to join the team and make this into a group blog.

Comment here.

Tom Goldstein: you asked for it

This blog is inspired both by "The Anti-Becker-Posner Blog," recently launched by "The Crit Cowboy," and by Tom Goldstein's recent statement on SCOTUSBlog's sister blog, The Supreme Court Nomination Blog, that Howard Bashman of "How Appealing" raised "a valid concern" in suggesting it might be unwise for a law firm such as his, which focuses on U.S. Supreme Court litigation, to attempt a "neutral and informational blog" on Supreme Court nominations which might "ruffle many feathers." In so doing, Bashman credited a comment on Goldstein's blog suggesting that Goldstein's recent post ranking various prospective U.S. Supreme Court nominees from least to most controversial might create problems.

The premise of this blog is that it is indeed problematic for Supreme Court specialists such as Goldstein and his co-bloggers to venture into this highly politicized territory at the same time they are charged with representing clients before the Court. Their decision to take this step warrants closely scrutinizing past, present, and future posts on both SCOTUSblog and on its sister blog on Supreme Court nominations.

Apart from the intrinsic merit of close scrutiny of influential blogs such as these, such scrutiny may be particularly valuable as it bears on the credibility of Goldstein and his co-bloggers in running what are claimed to be neutral and informative blogs which provide "an objective take" on relevant matters, as Goldstein puts it. If past, present, or future blog posts supply evidence of a lack of objectivity on the part of Goldstein and his co-bloggers, that would be relevant in assessing the credibility of their current effort to provide objective coverage of Supreme Court nomination matters.

With Tom Goldstein having invited close scrutiny of these blogs by claiming, despite considerable evidence to the contrary (as this blog will attempt to show), that they represent an "objective take" on relevant matters, and by going forward with the Surpreme Court nominations blog despite what Goldstein admits are "valid concerns" articulated by Bashman and the commentator, a blog such as this one seems amply justified. In effect, Tom Goldstein has asked for this blog. And even if this blog is not justified by anything Goldstein and his co-bloggers have done, it nonetheless will have whatever substantive value its posts collectively carry.