Blog Wars

In a matter of hours, voting will end in the ABA Journal’s Blawg 100 contest. ATL is competing in the Gossip category. If you’d like to vote for us, or one of the other fine gossip blogs in the category, just click here.
We have a decent-sized lead, so we’re not going for the hard sell. In contrast, over in the Generally Speaking category, a fierce battle is raging between Overlawyered and Quizlaw — separated by about 30 votes, out of over 3,000 cast. Check out their respective plugs here and here, replete with “last-second dirty tricks.” Because no legal blog contest is complete without eleventh-hour chicanery — the stakes are too darn high.
As one blog contest draws to a close, another gets underway. Nominations are now being accepted for the Eighth Annual Weblog Awards (aka the 2008 Bloggies). There’s no “law” category (and, as of this year, no “Best African or Middle Eastern Weblog” or “Best Craft Weblog” category — may they rest in peace). But if you’re feeling nice, feel free to nominate ATL for either “Best Gossip Blog” or “Best Topical Blog.”
And here is yet another blog contest (because you can never have too many blog contests). It takes the form of today’s featured job survey, brought to you by ATL and Lateral Link:
Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.
The ABA Journal Blawg 100 [ABA Journal]
The ABA Journal Blawg 100: Gossip [ABA Journal]
Eighth Annual Weblog Awards: 2008 Bloggies [official website]

Larry Craig Larry E Craig Larry Edwin Craig gay senator Idaho Above the Law blog.jpg* News you can use: “Latin phrases law students should know, but likely don’t.” [Volokh Conspiracy]
* Two angry pharmacists walk into a bar. [Concurring Opinions; NY Personal Injury Law Blog]
* Methinks Senator Craig doth protest too much. [Blogonaut]
* And what about his daughter? She may have been a bad girl too. [Washington Wire and The Smoking Gun (both via Blogonaut)]
* A consumer law firm resorts to product placement. Is this better or worse than having a theme song? [National Law Journal (now registration free, thanks to yours truly)]
* Miranda Priestly at the MoMA? That’s all. [Althouse (last photo)]
* And did she mention that it’s NOT a beauty pageant? [WSJ Law Blog]

trophies trophy award prize Abovethelaw Above the Law online legal tabloid law blog.jpgRemember Niki Black’s “Funniest Law Blog” contest, over at Legal Antics? The results have been announced, and Above the Law won second prize. Woo-hoo!
Thanks to everyone who heeded our desperate pleas and voted for ATL. And congratulations to Phila Lawyer, which took first place, and QuizLaw, which came in third.
We’re delighted by our second-place finish. The winner gets to pick any single item sold by The Billable Hour — but excluding their coveted luxury watch line. We, on the other hand, get three signed copies of Saira Rao’s roman a clef about clerking for Judge Dolores Sloviter juicy new novel, Chambermaid — which is a very fun summer read.
Hooray! And thanks again to everyone who voted for us.
And, the winner is… [Legal Antics]

haha I'm Using the Internet Abovethelaw Above the Law blog.jpgOk, at first we didn’t care, but now we’re getting jacked around (along with everybody else in the contest) by Phila Lawyer! This aggression will not stand, man! Don’t hold Lat’s momentary absence against us; vote for ATL now as the funniest law blog.
Vote for the funniest law blog… [Legal Antics]

All About Eve 2 Linda Greenhouse Jan Crawford Greenburg Jan Greenburg Jan Greenberg Jan Crawford Greenberg Above the Law.JPGWe have previously compared the fierce competition between Supreme Court correspondents Linda Greenhouse, of the New York Times, and Jan Crawford Greenburg, of the Chicago Tribune, to the rivalry between Margo Channing (Bette Davis) and Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) in All About Eve.
For decades, Linda Greenhouse has ruled the reportorial roost at the Supreme Court — just as Margo Channing reigned over the New York stage. But just as Channing came to be challenged by a young and attractive newcomer, Eve Harrington, Greenhouse now faces tough competition from Jan Crawford Greenburg.
Perhaps this comparison, much as we love it, must stop here. We don’t want to spoil All About Eve for those of you who haven’t seen it. But let’s just say that Margo doesn’t put up much of a fight when Eve moves into her turf.
Linda Greenhouse, in contrast, is NOT going gentle into that good night. She will NOT pass her tiara graciously to Jan Crawford Greenburg, like a Miss America ending her reign. Greenhouse has no intention of allowing Greenburg to ascend to the post of America’s Next Top Supreme Court Reporter — at least not without a (cat)fight.
How do we know this? Just read between the lines of this “Reporter’s Notebook” item by Greenhouse. It’s snarkily entitled “Alarmism in the Blogosphere” — “blogsophere” being synonymous with “unreliable and dubious rumor-mongering” — and in it, Linda G. goes out of her way to embarrass and even humiliate her younger colleague:

Jan Crawford Greenburg, an ABC News correspondent who covers the court, posted a startling item last week on her blog, Legalities. Under the heading “Faith and Frailty,” she wrote that the “real drama” of an argument concerning the Bush administration’s religion-based initiative came when the argument ended.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s delay in getting to her feet and leaving the bench, Ms. Greenburg wrote, seemed a sign of possible ill health and “made me think I’d better start pulling those possible retirement files together.”

The alarming item quickly made its way around the blogosphere, puzzling court insiders who know that Justice Ginsburg, 73, is in fine health and keeps to a schedule that would exhaust most people who are decades younger….

The explanation is, quite literally, pedestrian. According to her chambers, Justice Ginsburg had kicked off her shoes during the argument and could not find one of them.

OUCH. Jan Crawford Greenburg did some phenomenal reporting work for her fantastic new book on the Court, Supreme Conflict. But in a single breezy, casually tossed-off “Reporter’s Notebook” item, Greenhouse makes Greenburg look like a rank amateur.
We conduct a close reading of Greenhouse’s column, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Greenhouse v. Greenburg: This Queen Bee Will Not Buzz Off”

Orin Kerr Orin S Kerr professor Above the Law.jpgDouglas Berman Douglas A Berman Doug Berman professor Above the Law.jpgIt is SO ON.
More on Judge Pregerson’s Opinion in Carrington v. United States [Volokh Conspiracy]
More Kerr on Carrington and mandate recall discretion [Sentencing Law and Policy]
Distinguishing finality interests between convictions and sentences [Sentencing Law and Policy]
Earlier: Sentencing Law Smackdown: Berman v. Kerr?
Judge Harry Pregerson Is Cruisin’ for a Bruisin’

Orin Kerr Orin S Kerr professor Above the Law.jpgDouglas Berman Douglas A Berman Doug Berman professor Above the Law.jpgOn Wednesday, Professor Orin Kerr sarcastically mocked — and also analytically attacked — the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Carrington v. United States (PDF). In an opinion by liberal stalwart Harry Pregerson, the court authorized resentencing in two cases from the Mesozoic Era the 1990′s. We wrote about the decision here.
We expressed interest in hearing what sentencing guru Doug Berman would have to say about the case. And now Professor Berman has kindly obliged, in a quasi-snarky post that asks, What’s wrong with equitable Booker retroactivity in the Ninth Circuit?
Consider the gauntlet thrown down. Professors Berman and Kerr are two of the biggest crim-law bloggers around. And they kinda look alike, too. (See photos — Professor Berman at right, Professor Kerr at far right.)
Will Professor Kerr take up Professor Berman’s challenge? Might we have a blogospheric battle of the titans on our hands?
(To be sure, you have to be a bit of a sentencing law geek to appreciate this. If you are, then you might also enjoy this post by Professor Berman, Proof the guidelines are reasonable — a riff on our recent post about Justice Breyer writing the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines on Professor Charles Fried’s dining room table.)
Carrington v. United States [Volokh Conspiracy]
What’s wrong with equitable Booker retroactivity in the Ninth Circuit? [Sentencing Law and Policy]
Carrington v. United States (PDF) [Ninth Circuit via How Appealing]
Earlier: Judge Harry Pregerson Is Cruisin’ for a Bruisin’

crescat sententia logo above_the_law.jpg
Here’s the most important part of this post: If you’re a reader of the most excellent Crescat Sententia, please note that IT HAS MOVED.
The new, correct address is If you go to the old address, you’ll see what looks exactly like the old blog. But that is NOT the Crescat Sententia blog.
Here’s the backstory, from Will Baude:

In September, without my knowledge or consent, our old domain was purchased by a Search Engine Optimization firm that intends to make money by either reselling the domain for a pretty penny to somebody greedy for its pagerank, or by using that pagerank to sell links to sites eager to trick Google. The webpage up there now is not this blog (it’s an old cache that he will have to take down soon), and this blog is the current and future home of crescat.

Because of the switcheroo, I can’t post a notice over there telling everybody where we’ve gone, so we’re reliant on people updating their blogrolls, and on word of mouth. With your help, hopefully we can minimize the disruption this has already caused.

I thought about taking this as a sign that it was time to turn in and give up, but I think this whole episode was a vindication of some principle like loss aversion. I’m not ready to go yet, and when I am, it will be on other terms.

Please, please, spread the word. WWW.CRESCATSENTENTIA.NET.

When Will Baude emailed the owner of the company that acquired his domain name, he was told to take a hike. The owner expressed a willingness to sell the domain name back to Will — for an exorbitant, extortionate price.
Those of you who blog probably realize what a total nightmare this is. Our sympathies go out to our blogging brethren at Crescat.
There’s some great discussion of this issue over at Concurring Opinions (incl. the comments). See here, by Dan Solove, and here, by Kaimipono Wenger.
Moral of the Story: Website owners and bloggers, remember to renew your domain names — early and often.*
* With Christmas approaching, here’s an ATL holiday shopping tip: Domain names make great gifts. The person you purchase the domain name for may not use it immediately. But it’s nice for them to know that, should they ever want to start up a blog, personal website, or business website, their domain name is reserved for them.
(Yeah, we’re dorks — we bought our parents their domain names for Mother’s Day and Father’s Day this year.)
The Remains of Crescat []
Quote of the Day []
Crescat Sententia’s Exploited Domain Name [Concurring Opinions]
Slimy SEO’s invade the Blawgosphere (Part II) [Concurring Opinions]

thoughtful man.gifAnn Althouse raises a potential quibble with the above quip, made by Justice Antonin Scalia in a public appearance this past weekend. She writes:

It would be better to say “not everything that is stupid is unconstitutional.” “Everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional” can be read to mean that every stupid thing is constitutional, when plenty of stupid things are unconstitutional. I know there’s some argument over whether this should actually be considered a usage error. The argument that it’s not usually brings up Shakespeare’s “All that glisters is not gold.” Why didn’t he write “Not all that glisters is gold”?

Howard Bashman criticizes Professor Althouse for engaging in “untoward nitpicking on the internet.” But it seems to us that Althouse, after raising this possible ambiguity, ultimately comes down on the same side as Bashman:

[F]orget about this particular language nicety, I’d say. I’m rather glad to myself, since I was personally needled for years by someone who was inordinately vigilant on this usage point.

To support her position that this is much ado about nothing, Althouse cites Fowler. And as we’ve pointed out in these pages, Justice Scalia is a devout follower of Fowler.
We say: Everything is illuminated that is not unilluminated. Including the dispute over this issue of usage.
“It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional.” [Althouse]
Does “Everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional” equal “Every stupid thing is constitutional”? [How Appealing]
Earlier: The Eyes of the Law: A Legitimate Use of “Scalito”
The “S” Clash: Scalia’s Position Explained
Read This Only If You’re a Grammar Nerd

* We’re several days late on this; but it’s just as well. We’re not touching this controversy (see photo below) with the proverbial 10-foot pole. [Althouse; Feministing; Althouse; Feministing]
But just out of curiosity, ATL readers, what’s your first reaction to this photo of Bill Clinton and a group of bloggers? Please place your responses in the comments to this post.
clinton with bloggers.jpg
* HP looked into having spies infiltrate the offices of CNET and the Wall Street Journal by posing as clerical employees or cleaning crew members. This scandal gets more insane by the day. [DealBreaker]
* Have an iron stomach? Looking for a quick way to make $75,000? [TortsProf Blog]
* We agree with Professor Dimino’s students — we’ll take a statutory class over Con Law any day of the week. [PrawfsBlawg]
* Lawyers don’t have a monopoly on mumbo jumbo. [Securities Litigation Watch via DealBreaker]
* It’s about time: Washington women get on the footwear bandwagon. [Washington Post]

Page 4 of 512345