In addition to the wonderful writing and fascinating substance of the blog, I like the masthead of The Volokh Conspiracy. It reads, “Mostly law professors, blogging about whatever we want since 2002.” That got me thinking. (I know. Don’t say it.)
What if a bunch of senior and retired federal district judges started a blog about the federal trial courts entitled, say, “The aging (and self-styled) aristocrats of the Article III trial courtroom.” The masthead might read: “Probably pompous, but certainly old, federal trial judges (sometimes) blogging about stuff they know something about.”
Alas, there is no chance. As trial judges, we are too used to being the monarch. But, then again, it could be wicked fun.
RGK
Will there be any humous anecdotes? I’d like to photograph the meetings.
We would only meet in secret. But, maybe we could make you our pool photographer. Let me think.
All the best.
RGK
I hope that Lorin Duckman is talking about soil. I love me some good dirt.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humous
RGK: we are too used to being the monarch.
I would like just one federal judge to explain to me how it is that they came to believe that we somehow appointed them to be our absolute monarchs. As we were reminded yet again in McCutcheon, “precedent,” “judicial restraint,” and “original intent” are just quaint 18th century concepts, relegated to the dustbin of history. Standing Bear would have a tear in his eye….
You’re better off doing this either solo or anonymously, because the only time you get a hint of brutal honesty– and from the appellate bench in particular–appears to be in dissent. As Justice Eisemann of the Idaho Supreme Court recently observed:
Nield v. Pocatello Health Svcs., Inc, 2014 Opinion 20 (Ida. 2014) (Eisemann, J., dissenting) (unpaginated slip op. per Google Scholar).
McCutcheon resembles that remark. “I pledge allegiance to the Corporate $tates of America, and to the gross profit for which it stands….”
Did I say something?
All the best.
RGK