The next few weeks are going to be particularly busy for me, as I finish up a bunch of projects, start some new ones, and prepare to head out to Chicago for the fall (where I will be visiting at U of C). Unfortunately, I don’t think I’m going to have the time to keep up the solo blog as much as I would like, either from the standpoint of daily posts or moderating comment threads. Instead of doing a half-hearted job, my plan is to stop posting here for a bit and instead go back to posting exclusively at the Volokh Conspiracy for a while, albeit on a less-than-fully-regular basis. I know that most of you read the VC anyway, so my hope is that the disruption will be very minor.
Here’s my first post back at the VC: The Hart-Fuller Debate and Student-Edited Law Reviews.
Of course, polls with a self-selected polling group are notoriously skewed – I would be willing to bet there are a lot more than 7% of your readership here who won’t, like me, ever read anything you write on VC because of the kind of blog it is.
[OK Comments: Guest, if you really don't like the VC as a whole you can use this link. It will give you a version of the VC that only includes my posts there.]
Wow, now that is nice. I will definitely use that – thanks much.
is this fairly well wrapped up then (it being late September)?
I propose we continue to post comments here in Orin’s absence. It’ll be a little support group for people who check orinkerr.com from time to time. Or, better yet, let’s hijack the blog (although if Orin still has the nettlesome comment approval system in place, it may hamper the project.) What shall we discuss, then?
RESOLVED, that any website meeting the following criteria,
(a) having an informal, periodic, short-entry format, and
(b)having fallen into desuetude,
shall hereafter be referred to as a “blahg”.
Excellent.
Now we need some blahg rules:
Rule #1: You must not obey rule #1.
Next?
Rule #2: Posters must refrain from commenting on the fact that “Orin S. Kerr” is an anagram of “irk snorer.”
Rule #3: The blahg must have a Rule 3.
Rule #4: GOTO Rule #4.
Rule #5: The blahg will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly blahg comment, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the blahg an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act.