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.
posted by Unknown at 6:12 PM
11 Comments:
Great blog. Well, it sounds a little personal, and it's only my opinion, but you might start with the evidence that Goldstein is basically a pompous idiot for whom the Supreme Court law clerks who review his work most closely have little real respect -- though he gets plenty of positive press from Tony Mauro in exchange for doing scut work for Mauro, so anyone reading such press coverage would think he's the real deal. Goldstein runs around telling people how many Supreme Court cases he's argued, but avoids mentioning he loses the vast majority of them, and typically he only gets the arguments by doing the cases for free. That is, his market niche has pretty much been one of identifying loser cases that no one wants, and doing them for free. Nor does Goldstein say much about the fact that he's so lacking in basic intellectual ability he wasn't able to get into a top 10 -- or even top 25 -- law school. Nothing on his website gives his academic credentials or any other credentials. The briefs he's been filing lately are pretty good, I will concede, but that's only because he has students at Harvard and Stanford writing them for him, and they're way smarter, and much better writers, than he is. Check with former Supreme Court clerks on all this, if you can. My impression is that most clerks will agree Goldstein has a reputation of being someone who's good at spotting circuit conflicts, doing cert. petitions, and doing PR, but is hardly a top-flight lawyer in terms of intellectual ability and candor; indeed, I think you will find he's the subject of some ridicule among clerks. For Goldstein to be pontificating on his blog on Supreme Court nomination matters as if he's some sort of leading light in the legal community is pretty funny, and probably is just going to up the ridicule level. At least the whole thing's entertaining. Great blog, and I hope you continue with it, and that these posts aren't just a one-shot thing.
I'll avoid any "Goldstein is an idiot" comments, thank you very much, and I hope that sort of thing isn't featured on this blog. However, I think the blog itself, at least regarding Goldstein's coverage of Supreme Court nominations, is a legitimate thing for at least one reason. My impression is that Goldstein and his co-bloggers are mostly, maybe exclusively, liberal Democrats, and that some of them are active in the liberal American Constitution Society, whose agenda is to try to end up with a replacement for Rehnquist who shifts the Court left, at least a bit. My impression from the posts to date is that Goldstein is very high on Michael McConnell, who's the darling of liberal law professors (in part because of his libertarian streak), and John Roberts, who liberals at least are hoping would if appointed turn out to be slightly less liberal than Rehnquist (perhaps because his admirable craft ethic might make him reluctant to overturn or cut back on liberal precedents). My further impression is that Goldstein's blogging IS NOT neutral and objective -- that he's letting his own political/ideological/partisan preferences factor into the substance of his blogging, possibly without realizing it. I think this sort of thing is the danger to which Howard Bashman was referring, although he was too polite to spell it out in detail. For example, Goldstein recently posted on how the fact that McConnell and Roberts recently went through the FBI investigation process tended to weigh in favor of appointing one of them. But he hasn't posted anything (to my knowledge) on the obvious factor weighing in favor of appointing Michael Luttig or Edith Jones -- that appointing either would almost certainly ensure the Court does not become more liberal than it currently is, whereas appointing others could be risky from the perspective of hard-line conservatives ("no more Souters," etc.). I hope you'll explore my impression that the SCOTUSblog coverage has been slanted, perhaps unconsciously, in favor of the only two apparently viable candidates who might shift the Court left. You may want to look into the background of the SCOTUSblog bloggers to confirm or rebut my impression that they're liberals and/or affiliated with the ACS. This is not meant as a personal attack. There's nothing wrong with being a liberal, card-carrying member of the ACS, in abstract. But these bloggers are claiming they're running a neutral and objective blog, so evidence that the coverage is skewed becomes much more meaningful if the bloggers are all or almost all liberal Democrats who'd like to see the Court shift to the left. These points, however, should not be explored in any way that comes across as a personal attack on particular SCOTUSblog bloggers.
I hope this blog lasts longer than How Appalling--talk about egos.
Your blog is idiotic. If you have something of value to say about Supreme Court nominations, start your own blog about it, one in which you identify yourself so you're accountable for what you say. If at some point you find yourself in disagreement with something on SCOTUSblog, point that out. But don't set up an anonymous blog devoted solely attacking other bloggers.
Agreed (with Bob).
How Appalling was a bit personal, but it was designed for humor, not substantive criticism.
The best place to note errors or omissions in the Goldstein blogs' postings is probably in the comments to the postings themselves.
Then you can be assured that whoever reads their stuff won't go away with an erroneous impression. Any, you can freeride off of his readership somewhat to the added benefit that, if you're right, someone might jump to your defense.
If, on the other hand, you're more interested in making personal attacks on Goldstein et al., it's probably better to have your own blog.
I'm fairly conservative, especially socially, and no fan of the ego that Goldstein occasionally shows off, but I don't think that the attacks in the postings and the comments are fair or even funny. To respond to anonymous, the site doesn't list Goldstein's law school, but it does mention that he clerked for Particia Wald of the D.C. Circuit.
And if you think that he's being less than honest, that's what Martindale is for:
http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/Lawyer_Locator/Search_Lawyer_Locator/search_result.xml?PG=0&STYPE=N&LNAME=goldstein&FNAME=thomas&FN=&CN=&CTY=&STS=9&CRY=1&LSCH=
Perhaps his method of getting Supreme Court arguments isn't as impressive as others, but so what? Lots of Supreme Court advocates end up there by accident. If he wasn't any good at what he does, do you think that the law schools would let him teach?
Anywhow, this sort of discussion is better suited for the Greedy Clerks board.
I don't know whether Scotusblog does or does not allow "anonymous" comments, but they did allow comments I made pseodonymously (as "CD" with my giving this name as fuller ID). They didn't edit or scrub the comments either (even though I did a lousy job of proofreading at least one of the comments). Granted, being able to post pseudonymously is not quite the same thing as being able to post anonymously (I have some interest in my pseudonym's reputation), but for most purposes it's just as good, especially considering the readership of the blog.
I agree with "CD." Your post is unfair to SCOTUSblog in saying that comments are "censored" on it. I've left some quite critical comments on SCOTUSblog, and they've all been posted, a little bit to my surprise on one or two of them. SCOTUSblog did not touch a word in any of the comments, but instead posted all of them promptly.
I do not think the comments are "censored" in any meaningful sense. Rather, as the blog's
comment function says after you post a comment, there's a delay before the comment actually posts, so the webmaster has an opportunity to screen out malicious comments. This is a standard function of the computer program used to run the blog, not something the SCOTUSblog people dreamed up to somehow quash dissent. I doubt many comments, if any, have been screened out as totally malicious. Since some quite negative posts by me have not been screened out, I think that only nakedly malicious comments, that is, in form (swear words, personal invective for the sheer pleasure of it, etc.) are screened out, and there is no censoring of the comments based on the substance, even of comments that are quite critical of the bloggers on SCOTUSblog.
I know the Posner blog doesn't screen comments at all, and instead the comments post as soon as they're made. I'm not acting as some sort of shill for SCOTUSblog, and I admit reasonable people might conclude that to have no websmaster review, like Posner's blog, is a better way to do it. However, I don't think it's fair to accuse SCOTUSblog of acting as "censor." Not that I think you're making any particular effort to be fair, anyway.
Incidentally, although having no review of comments before they post, like Posner, is one way to do it, there is an advantage of forcing people to post pseudonymously. As "CD" points out, people have an interest in their pseudonym's reputation, because comments are taken more seriously if made by someone with a consistent pseudonym who has made valuable comments in the past, and because it's a hassle to set up more than one or two pseudonyms. My aim is never to post anything I wouldn't be comfortable posting under my own name, and I hope I live up to that ideal and my comments are taken seriously. The main reason I use a pseudonym at all, at least for now, is that I just finished my first year of law school, and as a relative neophyte at least in law I'm sure I've said some stupid things, and I don't want people to be able to Google my name five or ten years from now and find early posts that they can quote out of context to say I'm a moron. A few friends know, and others might be able to guess, who I am, but for my purpose in using a pseudonym, it does the job, and I prefer it to posting anonymously (even on blogs where that's allowed) because it helps me build up a reputation as a responsible commentator even among those who don't (yet) know my real name (and also allows my friends to know the comments are mine). Other people, however, if they could just post anonymously at will, might tend to make totally malicious, irresponsible comments. Requiring the use of a pseudonym helps keep the comments responsible, while still allowing people to maintain anonymity.
A final thing just occurred to me. Actually, SCOTUSblog has been so reasonable in allowing comments that it permits effective anonymity on an ad hoc basis, at least on the main blog. Arguably it's been way too permissive, and should tighten up -- exactly the opposite of your complaint about censorship. A few months ago people were posting using names like "Anonymous" and "Supreme Court clerk," and obviously fake e-mail addresses, and the comments were permitted to be posted anyway. There's nothing required on SCOTUSblog to make comments like on Blogger, which mandates (if the "registered users only" option is picked for the blog) that the user be registered, with a valid e-mail address. I think something like that's only required on the new Supreme Court nominations blog, which personally I think is the correct policy. Given that track record, I'd be surprised if any comment that could be remotely characterized as non-malicious has ever been rejected by SCOTUSblog (if anyone out there has ever had a comment rejected, post about it here -- I doubt anyone will, further proving my point). So to call the comment posting policy "censorship" is ridiculous. Not that you're making much of an effort to avoid being ridiculous. If this is the sort of trivial criticism which you think justifies a whole blog, your supply of readers is going to dry up pretty fast.
I agree with Bob and ex-parodist that this looks like a personal attack on Tom Goldstein. You don't do a very good job of disgiusing it. As to the "anonymous" (catchy name) lead off commentator, I think you're trying to revive the already discredited episode involving various people at the National Review (ones I no longer respect as much as I once did) in which they called Goldstein a bunch of bad names in retaliation for him pointing out errors in the hack job they tried to do on Larry Tribe for supposed distortions in an essay that dealt with the death of his father. See here. And here, and here. The hack job was disrespectful enough, but they managed to go even lower in their exchange with Goldstein. I guess you're proud to be in such good company.
At least the National Review people had the guts to identify themselves and take the lumps they were due. To be clear, I don't think you're coordinating with them. They have real jobs and better things to do. I would be surprised if many people have much interest in this sort of thing.
As I said a few months back (here, here), I concur Goldstein’s not particularly respected among Supreme Court clerks (though my comments were empirical observations about his reputation, made to correct some excessivly pro-Goldstein spin, and I was not trying to “prove” his reputation’s deserved). So I say this not as a Goldstein fan, but the opposite.
What’s the relevance of the comment by “Anonymous”? I wouldn’t go as far as “Anonymous” to call Goldstein a “pompous idiot,” which whatever you think of him is juvenile name-calling. But what if someone has that conclusion about Goldstein? So what?
The value of Goldstein’s posts, or lack thereof, can be decided based on their substance, whatevr one thinks about Goldstein. After all, both you, that is, “The Conservative Cowboy” hosting the blog, and “Anonymous,” are asking your comments to be judged on their merits, without knowledge of your identity.
Why is it fair, or even relevant, especially for anonymous commentators, to inquire into Goldstein’s qualifications ? Seems to me that’s for Goldstein’s clients to judge. And it seems he has plenty of them, so it’s hard to believe he’s a total idiot, even though I’m confident Supreme Court clerks don’t think half as much of him as he thinks they do, or a quarter as much as he wishes they would, and even though I'm someone who views Goldstein with a certain amount of ridicule. What are his clients doing, running some sort of affirmative action program for pompous idiots? Please.
You know, you above commenters might be taking this blog just a little too seriously. I hadn't heard about the "Anti-Becker-Posner Blog," but I checked it out, and basically the first two posts of this blog simply rip off the original blog.
The first post of the original blog said, "Judge Posner: you asked for it," because Posner suggested someone who didn't like his blog could just set up an anti-blog. In other words, the whole blog was in fact Posner's idea. The first post of this blog says, "Tom Goldstein: you asked for it." But Goldstein didn't ask for it. At least not like Judge Posner. Which the end of the post basically admits. The discussion just seems like a gimmick to title the post about someone "asking" for "it," that is, an "anti-blog."
The second post of the original blog said, "An invitation to the public," and with minor differences this blog rips off that post almost word for word. Maybe "Crit Cowboy" should sue for copyright infringement.
I'd say this blog is mostly, maybe only, trying to belittle the "Anti-Becker-Posner Blog," or
maybe the idea of anti-blogs in general. Or maybe it's trying to belittle Howard Bashman -- maybe it was designed to appeal to his vanity, and see whether he'd take this seriously and link to it.
Another thing: this blog is hosted by "The Conservative Cowboy," the original by "The Crit Cowboy." Isn't that making fun of the name the guy chose for hosting the other blog? There doesn't look like much of any value on the other blog (at least compared to Posner's blog), so it's not hard to belittle. Maybe people should lighten up, at least unless there are other posts,
because this blogs looks like a joke.
Another thing: right under the blog title, this blog rips off word for word the subtitle of the original blog: "A blog devoted to correcting the mistakes, omissions, and downright nonsense on . . . ."
Even more lame, the quote from Gravity's Rainbow at the top of the blog doesn't reveal how supposedly well read "Conservative Cowboy" is, but is just ripped off from a comment "Erik" left on the "Anti-Becker-Posner Blog," here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/critboy/111746189495381933.
Erik's blog, where he repeats the quote, is here: http://williampittsburgh.blogspot.com/2005/06/counterforce.html.
Give credit where credit is due.
Post a Comment
<< Home