New Term, New Look
With the end of one Supreme Court Term and the dawn of another, we thought it was time to give SCOTUSblog a bit of an update as well. This post will outline a few of our changes.
The most obvious change is the addition of separate pages for various types of posts, which can be selected through the new tabs at the top of the site. From now on, we’ll be filing each post in one of the above categories; all new posts will continue to appear on the home page as they always have, but by clicking on the tabs above, you’ll be able to filter for just posts in the specified category. The “Commentary and Analysis” tab will contain all of our oral argument previews and recaps, along with general thoughts about pending cases and the Court in general (the daily “Round-Ups” will also appear on this page); also in this category, we’ll place the thoughts of Marty Lederman and our frequent guest-bloggers about certain important decisions. The “New Filings” page is where you will find our posts that highlight significant new developments at the Court, from death penalty stays to cert. petitions to noteworthy merits briefs. Under the “Orders and Opinions” tab, we’ll file all of Lyle’s dispatches from the Courthouse whenever new decisions or grants are announced. Finally, “Multimedia” is self-explanatory – in that category, you’ll be able to easily find new and archived podcast episodes, as well as the other audio and video offerings we will be producing in the future.
To the right of the tabs, you will see a link in red called “Term Tracker.” This link will take you to all of our posts that feature electronic copies of briefs and other documents, as well as voting statistics, docket summaries, and our “Conference Call” lists of petitions to watch that we will post in advance of each Conference. If you would like to stay on top of every detail about the current Term, and find many of the documents that the Court itself is reading, you’ll want to check out “Term Tracker.”
You will also notice a new icon at the top of the right-hand column, below “Term Tracker” and above the list of recent posts. That in-site “banner ad” will allow us to spotlight significant new posts, podcast episodes, feature articles, or even commentary at other blogs worth highlighting; using this feature, we’ll have a quick way to flag for you the most significant posts at SCOTUSblog or elsewhere about the Supreme Court.The last major aesthetic change is the one that has certainly been requested the most in my time here: a better search page. Yes, the page that delivers search results should now be as clean and easy-to-read as the rest of the site, so that if you can’t find what you are looking for by sorting through the tabs, that’ll be the place to go.
Finally, with all of those aesthetic changes and functionality enhancements, we thought we would use this opportunity to change our commenting policy. Starting today, we won’t be approving comments by users not using their real names. We know that a few of our most frequent commenters currently go by aliases, and we look forward to everyone’s continued participation – just under a name, not a handle. We hope it’s not too much trouble to make the switch. UPDATE 10/3: This policy is now in effect – full names only, please.
We hope you find the new features useful. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, feel free to e-mail jharrow [at] akingump.com. Other than that, happy October Term 2006.
Tom –
I wish you wouldn’t go to a no-handles policy. We all know what happened to a certain blogger from the NJ US Attorney’s office when his identity was revealed. I’m sure there are others out there who don’t want their employers to know what their opinions are or that they are expressing them.
What is the policy justification that is not served by the e-mail address disclosure rule? Would my exchanges with federalist be improved by knowing her name? Would people be willing to share first impressions if they could come back to haunt them?
Please rethink.
Comment by r.friedman — October 2, 2006 @ 8:08 am
Nice redesign. And thanks for the improved search page!
Cheers,
D
Comment by David Gossett — October 2, 2006 @ 9:05 am
RF – Thanks very much. We did think about the policy for a long time. The reason is that, in our experience, people post more responsibly when their identities are revealed. We don’t want to have to review comments for content and think this policy will let us stay hands off. There are downsides to be sure, but we think on net it will be an improvement. Certainly, we will keep an open mind to returning to anonymous commenting as we learn from experience. Best, Tom
Comment by Thomas Goldstein — October 2, 2006 @ 9:59 am
Thomas Goldstein on John Paul Stevens (quoted in Bloomberg article today):
Grandpa with a dagger. That’s an image.
Comment by Andrew — October 2, 2006 @ 11:22 am
Speaking of images, the new look is great.
Comment by Norma Chase — October 2, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
No dancing bears though, Norma.
Comment by Andrew — October 2, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
So, Jason, when is SCOTUSblog going to offer t-shirts?
Comment by Norma Chase — October 2, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
“Grandpa with a dagger.”
I couldn’t help but post this after reading Andrew’s comment. It’s a Late Show clip from a little over a year ago with a little SCOTUS humor.
Comment by iuris causa — October 2, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Funny. And I thought Goldstein was being original. :)
Comment by Andrew — October 2, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
I’m very disappointed by the ban on handles. I think that the occassional posts that went a little too far were just that, occassional. This blog is not like the Volokh Conspiracy which was quite nicely described by Orin Kerr as a “zoo.” The comments posted here are few enough that the occassional out-of a hand exchange doesn’t significantly hurt the quality of this blog. I fear that the prior restraint on aliases will end up curtailing a large amount of the quality of people’s postings, not just their quantity. I hope that I’m wrong.
Comment by Jacob — October 2, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
If I recall correctly, the comments should reflect that the primary proponent of a no-handles policy was Linda Greenhouse, who has recently been exposed for her strident liberal advocacy. Apparently, she is free to ventilate her radical politics without fear of employer reprisal. But many others who post here do not share in her privilege.
It is self-evident that a great number of those many are conservative in their politics. The no-handles policy, then, was advocated by a privileged liberal activist to deter conservatives from posting on this site. It is very unfortunate to see a site that reports on the Supreme Court converted into a greenhouse overheated by viewpoint discrimination.
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — October 3, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Jacques,
I disagree both with your premises — (1) that Linda Greenhouse was the “primary proponent” of the no-handles policy, and (2) that Linda engages in “strident liberal advocacy” — and in your conclusion — that there is something anti-conservative about the no-handles policy.
Starting with the first premise: My recollection is that Tom et al. floated the idea of requiring commentators to post using their real names last spring. Many posters responded that they agreed with that idea. Linda was among those who agreed with it. As was I (I’ve posted comments on this blog intermittently over the years, and have never posted under a handle). As were a number of others. A number of other people disagreed and supported anonymous posting. Linda was probably the best known of the posters who commented on the no-handles policy in either direction, but she was merely one poster among many. (That I agreed with her is irrelevant to my point here, which is that you have unfairly maligned both Tom and Linda by transforming her into the primary proponent of this change.)
As to your second premise — that Linda engages in strident liberal advocacy — I think the record strongly belies this accusation. Linda has her own politics, and occasionally publishes pieces — in the NYT and elsewhere — that reflect or suggest what her politics may be. But she is also viewed, by basically every serious observer of the Court (advocates, other journalists, Court staff, etc.) as being the most careful and, frankly, the best, reporter on this beat. She engages in shocking amounts of research — I don’t know where she finds time to read as many briefs as she does — explains extraordinarily complicated legal principles in a fashion that non-lawyers can understand, refuses to engage in flamboyant journalism (focusing on the substance of cases and their implications rather than on the kinds of fluff on which others occasionally focus), and is careful to a fault. Your post seems to presume that members of the media can magically avoid having their own views on subjects. That’s crazy. But in Linda’s case, she does a damn good job at being a journalist first and foremost — which is her job.
Finally, as to your conclusion — that the no-handles policy is anti-conservative. First, this doesn’t follow from your premises. Second, it is absurd: I am entirely willing to post under my own name, despite my quite-liberal politics. I am unashamed of them. I have many close friends whose politics are quite conservative. They are entirely willing to engage in public repartee under their own names, as well. And in fact, by posting this under your own name you have refuted your own premise—that conservatives will be deterred from posting by the no-handles policy.
The primary reason I can see for someone refusing to give their name in a post is if they are going to engage in character assassination or play fast and loose with the truth. But even if that were ever appropriate (which I doubt), I see no reason why Tom et al. should allow people to do that on their site. (The other reasons I can see for posting anonymously are if someone does not want their politics to be known, or is worried about their posts being attributed to institutions at which they work. These are somewhat more valid reasons for allowing anonymous posts, but are in no way anti-conservative. And to my mind, these are outweighed by the advantages that flow from making people take public responsibility for their own posts. One can debate this last point, of course, but that is not what you have done. Rather, you have engaged in character assassination.)
Rant off.
–David
Comment by David Gossett — October 4, 2006 @ 10:26 am
David,
Anyone who reads the whole of your post will see that it is character assassination against me. It also mistakes my comment for a formal syllogism, which it is not.
The reason the no-handles policy operates to deter conservatives from posting here is that, for whatever reason, most of the anonymous posters on this site happened to be conservatives. That is not a deductive truth, it is an empirical fact. Anyone who posts here regularly is aware of that. I take it, then, your intended audience is comprised of infrequent readers of this site.
It is entirely irrelevant that you — a liberal — are willing to post a character attack under your own name. What possible consequences could flow from defending — even illogically — Linda Greenhouse? More praise from other liberals? It takes a brave man to stick his neck out to risk being praised by his friends.
Your claim that I maligned Tom Goldstein — an advocate I deeply respect — is just wrong. Tom’s name appears nowhere in my post. That he asked whether others would be interested in a no-handles policy was a neutral act. Linda Greenhouse — knowing full-well that most of the anonymous posters here are conservative — threw her weight toward a policy that would tend to silence conservative voices. In her advocacy of that policy, she made clear that she knew exposing people’s names would tend to reduce the quantity of their contributions. It was not an accident. It was intentional. Linda Greenhouse did not accidentally advocate a position.
Likewise, as has been reported in major newspapers and gabbed about on the radio, Linda Greenhouse knew just what words she was uttering when she made strident liberal commentary while accepting an award at Harvard. Even Daniel Orkent, the former public editor of the New York Times, said he was surprised and made a public comment about it. Is Daniel Orkent playing fast and loose with the truth? No, he’s simply pointing out that Linda Greenhouse recently exposed herself to be an overt political activist. Whether that filters down into her articles is a matter left to judgment. I would only note that there are former Supreme Court clerks who see marks of bias.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Zjg3YjhlMTllZTY3M2U0MDlhZWYzYzgxMzI2MzQ4NjQ=
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — October 4, 2006 @ 11:00 am
Slightly off topic, but I’m convinced that the “Greenhouse Effect” will
succeed in persuading Justice Kennedy not to uphold the Federal partial
birth abortion ban.
Comment by Jacob Berlove — October 9, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
The death penalty really should be avoided totally because they went out
to Iraq for the US, taught by the government of something which other
times can or does protect people, but war is harsh and effects some too much to
have even gone there to Iraq. For those instances, the government should
realize people are going out into harsh, destructive circumstances, which isn’t even
their fight, but more a try at a so called try to protect, called on by other people. But the actual reality of how people can deal with actually going out there to Iraq is really actually different and it is a sensitive area, of course people can take it harsh and
accidentally “mess up” a little, maybe, sometimes, but when is it going to
be kind fair to them? What happened, what “they did” would not have
happened had they not been offered the door to go to Iraq, and be taught to shoot and kill and fight, no matter if someone said they had previously said they thought they wanted to go and do “whatever they or he did or DIDN’T want to go do in Iraq, like shoot to kill,” whatever they might have acted like they might have lightly played off that they wanted to do in Iraq, boys will be boys and previous intentions really shouldn’t and can’t matter. Whatever outside aggression is brought out or outpoured out of them or him, “maybe” if one really thinks about it, isn’t that really provoked by the harsh situation they are in? out there in the war and the really bad place most people don’t know about which is written about in one of the articles, the place they were in called “the Triangle of death” it doesn’t doesn’t seem fair, and at that point, while in the war, because of that, so called past intentions don’t matter, it doesn’t matter. Technically also since they were there under a different control, or reason, a different guiding force, a different conscience altogether
it’s not really their fault, they had a different guiding force, and a different load of stuff and a bunch of Iraqi shows of honor to try to sort through, you know some of those were aimed at a few towers in New York on a certain 9-11 and a few things like that, or things along those lines, everything from those intentions, there are more of actual happenings and their feelings which they really weren’t taught to deal with and isn’t their fault, I bet some of those things, like seeing other boys’ deaths all around them were right in front of them, everyday… I really don’t doubt a couple young guys would miss their sexual faculties either… poor guys, that is actually linked to actual emotions and upsets and why males are teased about having their own time of the month in normal situations, because I can see it would be like a rollar coaster, everybody needs some kind of love to them. The sad thing is a lot of guys are not condemned for it, but those poor ones were or hopefully won’t be now because they were in such a bad harsh situation, set up by someone else, and someone else’s fault, and it’s not his fault. … especially because
some people can accidentally “mess up, in harsh situations” no matter how, and people’s psychs are sensitive… it’s all not fair…
Comment by Soleah Kirsnerova — January 6, 2007 @ 1:58 am
In reading the transcript, I am surprised that the issue of “In God We Trust” on our currency didn’t come up. I realize that the example has become a cliche in Establishment Clause debates, but it still seems like a particularly relevent one in this case. If taxpayers have any standing at all in such cases, I would think that it would apply to challenging the actual currency. But that seems to be a topic that the Court would rather avoid.
The most important thing is for the Court to start bringing clarlity and consistency to its Establishment Clause jurisprudence. It has certainly failed so far in that regard. (Sorry Roger Friedman – but the Ten Commandment cases are a complete idiological mess that would offer no help here. Do you know what they really stand for? I sure don’t. And I don’t know anyone else who does either.)
Comment by Justin Levine — March 5, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Roger — Perhaps its just a case of the Chief being busy. According to Tom Goldstein’s analysis of remaining merit cases, the Chief still has three decisions to be announced.
I would also agree with the idea that we might be seeing multiple either concurrences or dissents. Scalia / Thomas might be writing something looking to overturn all affirmative action plans while Roberts takes a more narrow view.
Comment by Kent M. Ostby — June 20, 2007 @ 12:27 pm