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