No, not the type that wrongfully put innocent people in prison.  Not even the type that put guilty people in prison.  This is about the  Convictions that made such a huge splash, with an all-star cast of writers, at Slate a mere four months ago.  It’s come and gone.

Convictions on Sabbatical

Over the past four months, Convictions has reached hundreds of thousands of readers and contributed a great deal to America’s legal conversation.  However, we have decided to take a sabbatical. Instead of running Convictions as a continuous blog, we’ll call on our excellent roster of contributors when news breaks, and run their exchanges as a multi-part conversation, as we do Dahlia Lithwick and Walter Dellinger’s Supreme Court conversation at the end of term. 

When Slate announced Convictions, it was an attempt to bring together the “biggest names” in the blawgosphere.  It was an interesting concept in an ever-evolving world.  But “interesting” doesn’t pay the bills.

When Slate was first announced to other blawgers by emails, I posted about it.  I went over there and read it.  I was bored and stopped reading it.

Convictions developed into a conversation between their various writers (or which there were many) debating issues of internal interest.  When I read a post, it made the post to which it responded seem fascinating and controversial.  When I read the original post, it just wasn’t. 

Unlike other blogs, Convictions kept its focus internal, not linking to outside blawgs or posts and debating internal issues until they were beaten beyond any recognition.  There’s a lesson there for all of us.  Beat a horse enough and no one will care anymore.

Orin Kerr, not merely a Volokh Conspirator but one of the Convictions all-starts, asked a few weeks later why no one reads Convictions.  This was my answer:

I took a look around Convictions today, just for kicks.  Man, those lawprofs are going after each other in that collegial way that only lawprofs can.  They’re smacking each other around like crazy.  Name calling, b-slapping, jello wrestling, you name it.

I’m serious.  Check this out,  Marty Lederman’s smackdown at Eric Posner :

With all respect, I think that post really is beyond the pale.

And that’s just the first line!  It’s like wild animal at the zoo day over there.

So what did Posner do to deserve this vicious attack?

Few pleasures are more intense than that of contemplating one’s ideological opponents being punished for their errors, an activity that we law professors have so far been able to indulge only in our fantasies. 

Indulge in their FANTASIES!!!!!  Gag me.  This is what gets lawprofs all hot and bothered?  Ewwww.

Check it out.  But remember, it doesn’t get any grittier than this.

If you ask me, we’ve all learned some lessons from this experiment.  First, even all-stars can be a bore if left to their own devices.  Second, I don’t think there can be any viable existence in the blawgosphere that doesn’t include a broad spectrum of voices in the conversation, at will, at random, sticking in the low-brow with the high-brow, and coming out with a sausage that may be ugly to watch being made but at least has some flavor. 

Convictions was tasteful and tasteless.  Its demise reminds me how much I appreciate the input of readers to keep the conversation alive.  And if anyone decides to try something like this again, they might want to include some real lawyers in the mix, even though we may be neither “aces” nor all-stars.  At least we tend to be interesting.