« BillBlast: Feingold's Filibuster | Main | A Few Words From Israel's Vice Prime Minister »
December 18, 2005BELTWAY BLOGROLL
An Appeal For A Supreme Blog
Blogger Jason Mazzone at Concurring Opinions thinks a blog at the Supreme Court just might improve the quality of court opinions.
His proposal: "The Supreme Court should operate a blog to generate input on the court's opinions before they are published. The postings could range from limited issues ... to entire drafts of opinions and requests for comments."
He compared the concept with friend-of-the-court briefs from people who are not direct parties to pending cases. "A blog would expand on that principle and allow input from a wider audience," Mazzone wrote.
He also offered some thoughts on how to structure the blog. "An unmoderated Supreme Court blog would attract a lot of comments, many of which would be less insightful and helpful than others. ... So perhaps comments should be limited to registered users. Perhaps registration should require some kind of screening process. Law professors might qualify more easily than, say, astrologers. Anonymous posts probably should not be allowed."
That kind of thinking isn't exactly in the democratic spirit of blogging. But then again, the Supreme Court isn't exactly democratic.
Mazzone's post has sparked only one comment so far, from Concurring Opinions founder Daniel Solove who asks a series of questions: "What kinds of issues do you have in mind where you believe the blog will be of assistance? Ones involving precedent and case law? Or ones involving factual and empirical matters? Or both? Can you provide an example of a specific case or issue where tapping into the wisdom of the blogosphere would have potentially assisted the court?"
Posted by | 03:41 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://amcblog.nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/393
