Blog

Eugene Volokh, in his introductory post, notes that the conspirators new home may change, somewhat what they write. Not in terms of any editorial control from the Washington Post, but a change in reflected how the writers approach their own audience.

This having been said, we recognize that a few things will change, not because of their demands but because our attitudes to blogging will change in some measure. When someone else’s brand is at stake in what you write, you think about that before writing.

I don’t think this will make us shy away from controversy — that’s not our temperament — but it might lead us to cut back on a few of the more personal posts (though I’ll never cut back on the math puzzles). Still, on balance I expect that this will be a very slight effect. We blog because we have things we want to say, and having thePost platform will, if anything, make us more likely to want to say them.

So what will this look like? From my limited experience, when I guest-blogged at Volokh or Concurring Opinions or elsewhere, I did modify my style.

First, I take a lot more time to make sure my posts are perfect. I proofread them maybe 3 or 4 times as much as I do a post here. If I make a mistake on JoshBlackman.com, I’m not so worried. My readers know my style, and it’s my brand. But when I’m using someone else’s site, I am much more careful.

Second, I try to be a little more moderate in my tone than I usually would. My audience tends to know my style, my humor, and my quirks. I will sometimes make a joke with that assumption. Those assumptions are out the window with a bigger audience (I find this quickly in the comments when I toe that line).

Third, I found myself explaining things in much more detail than I do at my own blog. With a broader audience, I suspect there is a wider percentage of non-lawyers, and even lawyers who aren’t academics, reading, and I felt obligated to go into much more depth. The corollary of that is in order to go into a really tough topic, my posts had to be really, really long–which people tend not to read. It’s a hard trade-off.

Fourth, because of all the things I mentioned above, blogging takes more time. So much time, that I found myself cutting back on the number of topics I covered during my brief stints at each site. I didn’t want to peck off a quick 5 minute post, so instead I focused on several larger posts.

The audience for Washington Post (90th highest rank in the United States) is staggering. I will keep a close eye on the site, and monitor any subtle changes I see. Eugene insists his puzzle posts will remain. But what about Somin’s science fiction and baseball posts? And I suspect David’s Israel posts will be received by a much different audience. Further, will readers be interested in the inevitable blogging feuds between Orin and Randy/Ilya/Jon/etc. over the constitutional issue of the day? Some of these exchanges go back and forth a dozen times. Will that same rapport remain?

Also, there is an important, unstated boost for all legal bloggers. The incentive to get a cross-link from Volokh/WaPo has just multiplied by a lot. Today, a link from Volokh, or Instapundit, may generate a few thousand hits in a day. That benefit will increase significantly.

There is also the issue of the paywall. I have been flirting with paying for a WaPo subscription for some time. I already pay for the Times, and it seems annoying to have to pay for two newspapers, but Volokh may push me over the threshold. Plus, with the addition of Radley Balko, who will also probably sit behind a paywall, the balkanized internet emerges (a strong net neutrality irony there).

Speaking of which, what is the next legal blog to be acquired? Will Balkinzation join the Atlantic? SCOTUSBlog was rumored to be acquired by Bloomberg? Maybe Concurring Opinions is absorbed by Forbes? Let the consolidations begin!

Congratulations Conspirators! I look forward to your new home!

Update: This post by Orin from 3/13/06 about his “new venture” at OrinKerr.com may be relevant:

I’ve decided to experiment with a new blog. Starting today, I am splitting my time between the Volokh Conspiracy and a new solo blog, OrinKerr.com. I imagine the new blog as a kind of “lawyer’s lawyer” blog; all of the posts will be about the law, with an emphasis on current legal debates and a broader perspective on the legal academy and the legal profession. I’ll continue to blog here at the VC about general topics, but my legal posts normally will appear only at the solo blog.

In case you’re wondering, I’m trying this experiment for two reasons. First, I find myself increasingly drawn to more legal and less political blogging topics, and I’m not sure I like the juxtaposition of the two that is common at the VC. I gather lots of readers like the combination — the VC’s sitemeter stats are proof enough — but for a range of reasons I’m interested in creating a sharper divide between the two. The new blog will have a much smaller readership than the VC, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.

Second, starting a new blog will let me try a new approach to comments. At the new blog, most comments will be by invitation only. I explain the details in my first post, but the idea is to promote comments by a specific group of legal experts and commenters rather the general public. This isn’t very populist of me, I realize, but I think it fits the focus of the new blog: Comments can add tremendous value to a blog post, but legal experts and informed commenters tend to add the most value to blog posts about the law. Of course, my posts here at the VC will continue to be open to all.

Anyway, the plan is to try the new blog for a month or two and see if I enjoy posting there. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll fold up shop and post exclusively at the VC.

Orin’s comments reflect some of the issues I addressed above.

As of now, OrinKerr.com is not active.

The latest report from Gallup shows little change from November in the percentage of Americans who think the Affordable Care Act will make our healthcare situation “worse.” In January 2014, 48% thought it would make things worse. Only 12% think it will make it better.

And this is before the law has even affected people! 66% of Americans say the law hasn’t impacted them or their families yet.

Sixty-six percent of Americans say the law has not — so far — affected them or their families. The unaffected group is smaller by only a few percentage points than it was in two polls from last year. The relative few who say the law has affected them are more negative than positive about it, with 19% saying the law has hurt them and 10% saying it has helped them.

Of course, these numbers are before the individual mandate kicks in, premiums increase due to imbalanced rate pools, networks shrink, high deductibles are experienced, the business mandate kicks in next year resulting in more shakeups in employment, and the Cadillac tax hits in 2018 devastating most generous insurance plans.

Gallup has some more polling on how people perceive Obamacare and Affordable Care Act, based on four different wordings of the law.

Here are the four variations in the wording:

1. Mentions “Affordable Care Act” and President Obama: “Next, we’d like to ask you about the Affordable Care Act, the law President Obama signed in 2010 that restructured the U.S. healthcare system. Do you generally approve or disapprove of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, signed into law by President Obama that restructured the U.S. healthcare system?”

2. Mentions neither the Affordable Care Act nor President Obama: “Next, we’d like to ask you about the 2010 healthcare law that restructured the U.S. healthcare system. Do you generally approve or disapprove of the healthcare law?” 

3. Mentions only “Obamacare”: “Next, we’d like to ask you about “Obamacare,” the 2010 law that restructured the U.S. healthcare system. Do you generally approve or disapprove of Obamacare?”

4. Mentions “Affordable Care Act” only:  “Next, we’d like to ask you about the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 law that restructured the U.S. healthcare system. Do you generally approve or disapprove of the Affordable Care Act?”

The results of this experimental test show that the healthcare law descriptions can make a difference in the responses. Only mentioning the Affordable Care Act yields the highest support (45%), while only mentioning Obamacare yields the lowest support (38%). Support for the law when using the other labels falls in between, at 41%.

I should hasten to note that when things were looking good, the President was more than willing to call it Obamacare, and labelled it as such on all of his social medial platforms. When it hits the rocks, he would rather shirk that responsibility.

Last week one person was killed in a “shooting” at Los Angeles International Airport. It reached critical mass in the media. A search for “Shooting LAX” on Google News turns up 53 million hits. Yesterday there was a “shooting” at a barbershop  in Detroit. It was apparently precipitated when thirty people were gambling in a backroom. Three people were killed. Have you heard about it? Probably not. A Google News search turns up a mere 125,000 results. I will reiterate my thoughts on why some shootings gather more media attention than others.

Making my point, with humor, is Andy Borowitz:

A new study released today indicates that Americans are safe from the threat of gun violence except in schools, malls, airports, movie theatres, workplaces, streets, and their own homes.

Also: highways, turnpikes, libraries, places of worship, parks, universities, restaurants, post offices, and cars.

Plus: driveways, garages, gyms, stores, military bases—and a host of other buildings, structures, and sites.

Barber shops in Detroit aren’t on that list.

And, on cue, ThinkProgress blogs “A Mass Shooting Happened Yesterday But You Didn’t Hear Anything About It.”

What makes this shooting different? Several things. First, it happened in Detroit, a city with a staggeringly high murder rate. Second, the reported gunman had a criminal history, and may have had a longstanding feud with some of the victims. And, third, it happened in a space where many people can’t imagine themselves: a gambling session in the back room of a barber shop.

…

Sadly, the relative media ignorance of the shooting tracks with a common theme: Gun crimes often occur in low-income neighborhoods with largely non-white victims, but, from the news, you’d think every shooting put the white and affluent at risk of violence. There’s an obvious reason from a producer’s perspective: They want traffic, or viewers, and think they can get more if more well-off news consumers are self-concerned with the story. But it doesn’t reflect the reality of gun violence in the United States, where black people are far more likely to be victims of gun homicides compared to their white counterparts.

I agree with this assessment entirely.

When Brown v. Plata was decided in 2011, and the Supreme Court per Justice Kennedy effectively ordered California to release 40,000-ish prisoners for its over-crowded system, many contended that the goal would simply be impossible.

Justice Kennedy was fully aware of this, and he prospectively admonished the District Court to be generous about granting continuances:

The three-judge court did not err in providing a 2-year dead-line for relief, especially in light of the State’s failure to contest theissue at trial. The State has not asked this Court to extend the dead-line, but the three-judge court has the authority, and responsibility,to amend its order as warranted by the exercise of sound discretion. Proper respect for the State and for its governmental processes re-quire that court to exercise its jurisdiction to accord the State consid-erable latitude to find mechanisms and make plans that willpromptly and effectively correct the violations consistent with publicsafety. The court may, e.g., grant a motion to extend the deadline if the State meets appropriate preconditions designed to ensure that the plan will be implemented without undue delay. Such observa-tions reflect the fact that the existing order, like all ongoing equitablerelief, must remain open to appropriate modification, and are not in-tended to cast doubt on the validity of the order’s basic premise.

Justice Scalia called out this chicanery:

I suspect, however, that this passage is a warning shot across the bow, telling the District Court that it had better modify the injunction if the State requests what we invite it to request. Such a warning, if successful, would achievethe benefit of a marginal reduction in the inevitable murders, robberies, and rapes to be committed by the releasedinmates. But it would achieve that at the expense of intellectual bankruptcy, as the Court’s “warning” is en- tirely alien to ordinary principles of appellate review of injunctions. When a party moves for modification of an injunction, the district court is entitled to rule on thatmotion first, subject to review for abuse of discretion if it declines to modify the order.
…
So perhaps the coda is nothing more than a ceremonial washing of the hands—making it clear for all to see, that if the terrible things sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order do happen, they will be none of this Court’s responsibility. After all, did we not want, and indeed even suggest, something better?

Two years later, as expected, the Justices denied a stay on Governor Brown’s request to delay the 9th Circuit’s ordered release of thousands of prisoners. Justice Alito would have granted the stay.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas,opened up, with both barrels. After rehashing his opinion from Plata, and saying “See I Told You So,” he slams the majority.

The bluff has been called, and the Court has nary a pair to lay on the table

Of all the possible hands…I will read a double entendre there. Scalia stresses a point Justice Alito made in his dissent–that releasing these prisoners puts criminals at risk.

But as I suggested in my dissent, perhaps the Court never meant to follow through on its revisions suggestions. Perhaps they were nothing more than “a ceremonial washing of the hands–making it clear for all to see, that if the terrible things sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order do happen, then will be none of this Court’s responsibility. So also today, it is not our fault that California must now release upon the public nearly 10,000 inmates convicted of serious crimes.

And for good measure, citing Lawrence and Windsor, Nino turns to judicial hubris.

It appears to have become a standard ploy, when this Court vastly expands the Power of the Black Robe, to hint at limitations that make it seem not so bad. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 604 (2003) (SCALIA, J., dissenting); United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 25–26) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). Comes the moment of truth, the hinted-at limitation proves a sham. As for me, I adhere to my original view of this terrible injunction. It goes beyond what the Prison Litigation Reform Act allows, and beyond the power of the courts. I would grant the stay and dissolve the injunction.

Of course, Scalia refers to the line in Lawrence saying that the opinion does not implicate same-sex marriages, and ten years later, nevermind, it does.

As for me, I adhere to my original view of this terrible injunction. It goes beyond what the Prison Litigation Reform Act allows, and beyond the power of the courts. I would grant the stay and dissolve the injunction.

For some time now, I’ve been waiting for Justice Scalia’s see-I-told-you-so-and-then-some dissent on the aftermath of Brown v. Plata. Now we got it. A few weeks ago, I wrote, “Justice Scalia will enjoy writing a dissent, even if from denial of cert.” I bet he did.