EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
(Here's the post).
UPDATE: In all the excitement, I should probably mention what the article is about. Essentially, it explores the capacity of "oral dissents" (that is, Supreme Court Justices reading their dissents from the bench) to foster democratic deliberation, particularly by encouraging the inclusion of excluded parties.
[O]ral dissents are particularly but not exclusively well-suited to fulfill the three demosprudential elements: where a conflict about democracy is a core issue, accessibility rather than technical proficiency is a stylistic preference, and engaging in a larger public conversation is an implicit goal. (54)
It's an interesting piece -- and one of the first I've read to really treat blogs as an integral piece of American legal and democratic conversation (at least, that didn't take that potential as its specific subject).
3 comments:
Very cool, although bad blue-booking on their part -- where a blogger has his real name on the post, he should be cited as the author. (Courts mess this up too; Sean Sirrine had his name on the post cited in a 9th Cir. dissent, but the opinion didn't note him as the author.)
very cool. also that was a great post. Roberts money quote,
“The way to stop discrimination
on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
belongs up there with "separate but equal" in the great ideas for dealing with race.
Wow! HUGE friggin' coolness points to you!
Post a Comment