ADVERTISEMENTS

After I put up the post, early this morning, we had a conversation about it -- initiated by me, incidentally -- that follows from some recent efforts we have been making to keep the blog more focused on the Supreme Court -- that is, on activity directly before the Court, on the way predictably to the Court (for example, the domestic detention case from 4th Circuit), and in direct reaction to the Court (for example, the Guantanamo followups to the Boumediene decision).  With the rising popularity of our blog (the numbers last term were staggering for a blog), we are finding ourselves under a lot of pressure to cover more things -- reach out to issues we cannot be sure are Supreme Court material, announce meetings, do book reviews -- and so we have had to give some new thought to just what our niche is and ought to be.On the bailout story, while no one had any problems with the substance of the post, it just was a little too remote -- at this stage -- from the Supreme Court so we thought it better to lay down an internal marker.  We do that sometimes because we think we are a responsible blog.  No one here likes to kill a story.  But no one here has the illusion that we can cover all of the legal world, even though, quite frankly, it might increase our audience if we tried to do that.  There are times when I would like to do a constitutional thinkpiece, on some issue that really fascinates me, and I think that is what got hold of me last night after reading the text of the Treasury bailout plan.  But I usually refrain from such impulses, remembering that scotusblog has to be true to its name, and its mission.You and our readers (bless 'em all) can rest assured that if there is a lawsuit over the bailout, and we judge it is on its way to the Court, we will be all over it like a January snowfall in upstate New York.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.