Bloggers Impacting the World of Litigation

DaveKleiman writes "Will bloggers change the world of Supreme Court litigation by inspecting published opinions? Rachel C. Lee has an interesting take on the question in the Stanford Law Review, Ex Parte Blogging: the Legal Ethics of Supreme Court Advocacy In the Internet Era (PDF). She begins the review with: 'Lawyers have been arguing their cases before the Supreme Court for over two centuries, while the phenomenon of legal blogs is perhaps a decade old. Yet legal blogs cannot be dismissed as merely a sideshow novelty — they are already capable of having a substantial impact on Supreme Court litigation.' The review hits on many key points both for and against the use of blogging, but ultimately concludes that members of the Court and their staff will have to refrain from reading any blog post relating to a pending case, no matter who it is written by. It's even possible we'll get carefully drafted rules preventing blogging by attorneys." It's going to be tough to make any such prohibition work. After all, Groklaw's PJ is not an attorney.

Comments

gho8o

[Anonymous Coward]

Fly...don't fear 5ystems. The7 Gay

Supreme-Court Cases for the Law Blogs

[Anonymous Coward]

This session of the Supreme Court will address 2 important cases. The 1st case is the reverse discrimination endured by the European-American and Hispanic firefighters in the city of New Haven, Connecticut. The city gave a fair, objective written test to all firefighters seeking promotion. The firefighters who received the highest scores would receive promotions. Well, none of the African-Americans received a sufficiently high score. Because the test did not produce the right skin color, African-American leaders condemned the test and threatened the city with unspecified (possibly violent) action. So, the city canceled the results of the test. The Supreme Court should uphold the results of the test and should condemn the African-Americans.

The 2nd case facing the Court is the outdated parts of the Voting Rights Act. The Court should completely invalidate the entire Voting Rights Act. In both the Democratic primary and the general election, roughly 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. Clearly, the racism is coming almost entirely from the African-American community. The racism is not coming from either the European-American or Japanese-American community. So, the Voting Rights Act is unnecessary.