The New York Times published an excellent editorial about the upcoming election and Donald Trump. It’s not nearly harsh enough for those who despise him and too harsh for those who don’t, and it provides a surprisingly fair appraisal of who and what he is. If you don’t believe the times, believe his former Chief of Staff, John Kelly: Trump is the “most flawed person I’ve ever met.”
But for anyone reading this post, you already know this and have made up your mind about Trump, whether to be against him or wrong. Hey, it’s my blawg and I get to write that. But that’s not the point here. Rather, the point arises from many of the comments to the Times’ editorial which note its pointlessness. The people who need to read the editorial don’t. It’s just words bouncing off the wall of an echo chamber while old people write about what young people should do.
Young people don’t read, they argue. Young people don’t read the Times, they argue. To the extent some do, they read the headline, maybe the first paragraph, and then get bored and check their TikTok or Insta. So if young people don’t read, why write to them? Why write for them? If they never see it, never read it, it doesn’t exist.
This made me wonder who reads SJ and whether there’s any point in writing things designed to raise questions and give rise to that most dreadful and painful of human activities, thinking. Even though comments tend to come from the same group of people, there are still a great many lurkers here. Are they the same crowd as when SJ was fighting the good fight to tell people that cops did bad things sometimes, the law sucked sometimes, courts were wrong sometimes, and that we needed to do better?
Many readers in the early days (we’re coming up on the 17th Anniversary of SJ) came because of its defense lawyer perspective, and while that hasn’t changed as far as I’m concerned, some have morphed into the simplistic view of ACAB and Abolish Cops, absurd positions that I reject. They then fled SJ for more woke perspectives that conformed to their prejudices and gave them no cause to think.
So who’s still here? I know what the regular commenters have to say, tedious though some of you have become, but what about the lurkers? Who are you?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Your #1 Fan!!
My students tell me they get their news from social media. Perhaps if someone makes a TikTok video about the Times piece they’ll see it. It makes me worry about the future of the Republic.
I’m still here. Dad is still here. (I relay him your posts likely to be of interest.) Agree with Boomer re: future of the Republic.
i realize I’m a regular and you don’t want to hear from me, but you can trash this if you want. It’s become very hard to talk to young people about any controversial subject they care about, and if they don’t care, they have no interest in discussing it. They have a talking point response to everything, almost always factually and logically wrong and reliant on some empty jargon that means nothing to us but is irrefutable and conclusive to them.
In other words, we’re think differently, speak differently, reason differently and really don’t have any ability to communicate with young people except on their terms. And their terms are not helpful.
Self deprecation, when not used humorously, is a pretty big red flag for me (and likely others). He can clearly trash your comment if he wants and doesn’t require your permission to do so.
Why am I reading the comments!?
I’m a criminal defense attorney in Pittsburgh. You may remember me from such posts as “Hey, Boss, I Quit” and “Loaded Chambers.”
I am still a loyal reader. I miss the old days when people still read and interacted with each other on blogs.
You did predict the demise of the blawgosphere. As with many things, I thought you were wrong at the time.
I still plod along with my blog. Although I now have mostly local readers (D.C. defense lawyers, prosecutors, and court personnel) I still write with your demanding voice in my head: What would Greenfield find wrong with this entry? How could I strive to make it better?
Although I was never able to win the SJ blog entry of the year award (despite the highest aspirations to do so), I still covet my inclusion on the SJ blog roll.
Here is the text of a blog entry I wrote in 2012 after you announced that you were shuttering SJ. The blog entry was entitled “Scott Greenfield has left the building.”
Scott Greenfield is gone.
He must have planned this in advance. How else could he have achieved the perfect symmetry of ending the blog exactly five years to the day of posting his first entry? At the same time, whether or not he told anyone else about his plans, it is clear he did not tell what would appear to be his closest friends in the blogosphere. They too were left speculating on Twitter about the meaning of his enigmatic last entry.
Greenfield could be exasperating. That is why I read him every day. He could insult, criticize, and rant. The next moment he could produce one of the most honest and insightful blog entries you had ever read. Take a position, he advised. Stand for something.
The signs, I realize now, have been there for a while. He continued to write on variations of his favorite themes: integrity, loyalty to clients, mentorship, and the future of the legal profession. But, looking back on it now, a certain wistfulness had begun to work its way into his writing. He wrote recently about a malaise afflicting the blogosphere. And, repeating a theme he had expressed earlier, his final entry notes how new bloggers were covering the same issues and themes he has been writing about for five years now:
“They wrote good posts, and they did so without any client that anyone had discussed the same issues before them. It dawned on me that I’ve gone through another circle, as happens when we get older. Every year, maybe day, new people come into the blawgosphere and it’s a rebirth, where everything old is new again. As this thought occurred to me, I realized that my work is now part of the old, forgotten blawgosphere. This is probably how it should be.”
Of course, I read this and got it all wrong. While other people were bemoaning his departure, I was telling them that they were all idiots and that they were misinterpreting what read to me as simply a reflective anniversary post. I couldn’t imagine a morning when he wasn’t up at 5:00 am, cranking out three blog posts –seven days a week — before the rest of us had drunk our morning coffee. And, I said, do you really think he would end five years of blogging with a video of a dolphin? As it turns out, he did end five years of blogging with a video of a dolphin.
I owe more to Greenfield than I probably care to admit. He gave me a shout out during the early days of my blog, lending my blog at least the veneer of respectability within the criminal law blogosphere. And the good thing about any praise from Greenfield – doled out in such a miserly fashion – was that you always knew it was genuine. His kind words recently – almost two years after I was banished from his blogroll as a self-promoting marketer — meant far more to me than any ABA award.
At the same time, however much I basked in the praise, it was the criticism – the cryptic emails and blog comments before he threw up his hands and gave up on me — that I appreciated most, however much the criticism stung. It made me a better writer. It made me think twice before I posted anything.
With the RSS feed now quiet, I think of an astronaut untethered in space and turning like a planet. Thank you, Scott Greenfield, and goodbye.
This blog changed my life in many ways. I’ve been reading it since 2013 when I was in law school confused and unsure if I made the right decision. Thankfully I decided to practice criminal law. And equally thankful for this blog. In many ways it solidified my decision. But now I’m a private criminal defense lawyer. Many times the writing was not what I wanted to hear, but probably needed to hear. I really
I’m a retired physician who enjoys your posts since discovering the blog about 2-3 years ago (through Nancy Rommelmann) My late father was and my son in law is a lawyer.
Thank you for the work you put into this
Hi Scott…still here. 😊
I read because even when you are wrong, you are wrong in a thoughtful and intelligent manner.
Just because the kids don’t read and don’t listen doesn’t mean you don’t engage. The words still penetrate and are there when experience catches up to idiocy.
No one is convinced in one argument. It is an accumulation of age experience and the words that Kirk in their head, repressed and seem, even as they scroll away.
Not really a lurker, I hang around for the tummy rubs. Which occasionally require Rolaids. Also known as stabbing one in the front. Which only a friend can do. If stabbed, I’ve earned it. Most younger would-be readers would push the hurt my feelings square, it seems.
I’ve lurked forever. Stay around mostly for the hope of more Grandma Judith content. But for real, I am a post conviction/criminal defense lawyer. Have been for two decades. I read to learn. Your perspectives are always thoughtful. It is kind of mind blowing to me how you push out content. You don’t infrequently change my mind or at least put more nuance into my own thoughts. Or you reinforce with actual thought why I feel something. And I like and appreciate that. And sometimes you don’t persuade me but force me to have real reasons. I’m sure I’ll keep reading until you hang it up. And I feel like I owe you so if you ever need something in chicago, you know how to find me…
Josh describes my feelings about my time at SJ better than I can – especially the parts about “pushing out content”, which amazes me, and “put(s) more nuance into my own thoughts.”
It’s tempting to tell you to grab Dr. SJ and take a long vacation, but I’m an old white guy with three retirements coming in and yet I have a technically challenging business that I enjoy walking into every morning. My suspicion is that you get more out of SJ then we do. So party on my friend.
I’m a small-city media owner. I appreciate the legal insight, the common-sense analysis, and the snark when people merit it.
Semi-retired attorney in the midwest who has read your blog religiously for the past couple of years. I am a lifelong conservative who despairs at the damage being done by Trump to the virtues of civility, humility and gentility.
I find your commentary to be amongst the most thoughtful on the web and look forward to it daily. Your “voice” is unique and your ability to deliver fresh, entertaining analysis every single day is a remarkable gift that reflects an inquisitive and disciplined mind that I have come to greatly appreciate. I pray that you remain healthy and productive.
> damage being done by Trump to the virtues of civility, humility and gentility.
I might be jaded now but who exactly in the Republican party has ever espoused these virtues?
Writing this made me think of ol’ Mittens, I wonder how he’s doin’ now. He was pretty good, right? I recall that being an anomaly at the time.
I just started reading your blog about a year ago. I don’t always agree with you or comment on a post, but I understand your viewpoint.
Sadly, it isn’t just the young who gets their news from social media these days. Many people old enough to know better do as well.
“There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking.”
– Thomas Edison, or alternatively some English portrait painter.
I read most entries in this blog as well as, indeed particularly, the comments below the line. I’m not a lawyer so I rarely comment. Sometimes I disagree with what I read and sometimes I simply don’t understand it. But I like the range of perspectives both within and below the articles, and I like the author, who is a often-rude curmudgeon but clearly on the side of everything that is fair and just. When the author is outraged, it’s usually for very decent reasons. I hope the blog continues in its current form for years to come.
Reading SJ started me on the journey to being a lawyer. It showed me how lawyers reason. Now I clerk for an appellate judge in Pennsylvania. I usually start my morning with the latest post here, just to see what perspective there is on the issue that’s up that day.
I’m an Army tanker/Baptist evangelist from south Mississippi. I come because I respect your integrity and enjoy reading a view that may not be my own.
Same for me. I respect the intellectual integrity of the articles, and they force me think and critique my own views.
Retired federal engineer, not a lawyer, but served as legal officer on a naval vessel. And my engineering work had as much legal/regulation content as engineering. Once considered law school
I discovered this blog as it was slightly off-putting by the smackdowns. Got smacked down myself, at first, but realized that it is part of understanding the law.
I value this blog a LOT, for the factual information, the legal arguments, the clear writing, and the occasional humor. It is the first thing I read every morning.
I worry about becoming my parents, complaining about young people. But it is not just young people. A lot of boomers are behaving the same way, and it is very difficult to conduct a conversation any more about a controversial topic.
Every fact you utter generates a blank stare, if it collides with an established narrative. All that matters are credentials and worthless ” studies” done by computers/AI. Western civilization is being hollowed out, and I think it is deliberate.
Please don’t stop writing. You are a voice of sanity in a sea of chaos.
I think I’m a lurker, rarely comment… mostly I’m afraid of offending the Sergeant.
I come for the law more than the politics, but as I’ve no use for the doom and gloom of the MSM, your takes are usually how I find out something is happening in the politicks. It’s getting progressively harder to differentiate the facts from the biases on the internet, which is why I value your blog, as you’ve shown your personal integrity even when you don’t agree with the content, which is to be respected in this clime rather than taken as a given.
No tummy rubs, just facts. SJ serves a useful purpose, for me at least
I’m an over-educated forklift driver in the UK who wandered in from a link on ‘lowering the bar’ a few years ago. I was amazed when you took the time to scream at me about a comment I posted off the top of my head. Mostly I read because your reporting on American current affairs tends to be a lot less biased and vastly better informed about the law then anything professional news writes. It’s a very different perspective.
Or bananas
I don’t know if you’d consider me a “lurker” or a “regular”, however I’ll comment. And, not for nothing, you too can occasionally be a bit tedious, there, friend.
I’m a pensioned-off air traffic controller. I retired eight years ago. I have no “formal” education past a couple of college classes, however I’ve always enjoyed reading. Upon retirement I finally had time to read whatever I wanted to, whenever I wanted to, for pleasure. I was able to let my curiosity take me wherever it would. Abiding by choice in the subarctic finds me relatively short of daylight hours in the winter. So I indulge my reading vice mostly during the darker season.
I found your blawg via reading Judge Kopf of Nebraska. I stayed because I find some value in your thinking. I’ve contributed comments occasionally, however I mostly just read. I’ve contributed to the tip jar a time or two, however I find it a bit more satisfying to contribute to the causes you’ve sponsored, such as funding for the supplying of the resistance in Ukraine.
I contribute to comments sparingly, I would argue. Half a dozen times a year, at most. Sometimes you keep them, sometimes you eject them, which is absolutely your right. After all, you own the joint.
I visit because I enjoy reading what smart people have to say. That includes the thoughts of the majority of the commenters you choose to publish.
Jeff Tyler
Anchor Point, AK
Med student. I’ve been reading SJ from before people switched to Substack paywalls. I read to keep my mind open. The writing is strong, the viewpoint politically nondogmatic, and the author is too experienced to believe in theoretical fantasies.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
that cannot be forced to choose.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
who is not afraid to lose.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
that will not be made to hate.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
who will not capitulate.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
that knows this life is short.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
with priorities to sort.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
That forgives, but doesn’t forget.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
who still learns from his regrets.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
that will not join in your game.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
who will always take the blame.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
whose thoughts you can’t defend.
Who am I? I’m just a guy,
that will love you till the end.
GD.
Daily lurker here, rare commenter, retired lawyer (County, State, Federal, Military), some civil and criminal defense, mostly prosecution. I’ve sent more than a few of your posts to family and colleagues via email with the endorsement that SJ is my favorite criminal defense blog. I’ve dropped some $$ in the tip jar in the past, but not nearly enough to equal your value. Your passion for maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and for keeping the needs of the client foremost is the bright star of your posts.
Engineer/scientist, recently retired. I’ve been reading SJ daily since 2014. I’ve learned a great deal about law, courts, cops, and related topics. I rarely comment because I rarely have anything of value to offer on those topics.
Thank you for all of your hard work. You do more good than you can know.
I don’t feel old, but I had my 60th birthday a few months ago. This is the only blog I read anymore. I frequently disagree, and sometimes think that you are sadly deluded, but I appreciate your commitment to saying what you think, and your refusal to pander. Glenn Greenwald made a successful business model of this; you seem to just not care what anyone thinks.
I can hardly blame youngsters for getting their news from social media, because there are no credible news sources. The choice is between the garbage propaganda churned out by the media- industrial complex, and the garbage nonsense churned out by their favorite “influencer.” Few have the patience to sift through the left, right and “alternative” propaganda in an attempt to understand what is generating the shadows on the cave wall.
I read your blog because you force me to confront the flaws in my thinking–especially when I comment.
It looks like the average age in the hotel bar is about 62 years, so my guess is that you aren’t doing any better reaching young people (baby lawyers?) then the NYT.
And I know you’re not quitting blogging. If you didn’t let all those words out, you would explode
I’ve commented a couple times but read since early 2018. I’m 33 and not an attorney, just a Connecticut resident with a degree in history who’s interested in lots of topics. With reading I’m very much the exception for people my age, since autism overclocked my brain for reading (at the expense of a *lot*), so I always want to find more. I work with disabled adults, so your posts on the criminal justice system interacting with the disabled are always especially interesting to me, but I also read this because I know you’ll bring up topics I would never have found on my own. And the comments here are also interesting, it’s easy to forget that the area where I live doesn’t represent the common world view on everything.
I’m a tax lawyer in my early 50s in the south. I read your articles every day but only comment when I think I have something meaningful to contribute.
Retired (buy side) institutional investment guy. Reading was basically part of the job description. At my peak I was reading 5 papers & 6 periodicals on a regular basis. Dropped most of the daily newspapers as they became essentially useless purveyors for meaningful insights or information. Still read the Economist weekly to find out what is going on in the world. Came across SJ as a link from somewhere else. Stayed because it covers topics where I am ignorant. Don’t comment much because…well ignorant. Would hate to be a real life Dunning-Kruger example.
Gen~X IT guy from East Tennessee. I don’t always agree with your perspective on things but I admire your intellectual honesty and your writing is always worth reading.
The world needs more people like you, and we are unfortunately trending in the opposite direction.
Big fan. Discovered you when Conor Friedersdorf did an interview with you and your blunt answers goosed me out of my complacent world view.
Also a union steward of a public employee union where your opinions make me think a lot about THAT situation.
You have changed minds. I’m not the young (fifties) but I have been persuadable.
From the heart of Silicon Valley, Dan H.
I’m a former Naval Aviator turned airline pilot living in Oregon, and this is the first thing I read every morning.
Thank you for the work-
Chris
I added you to my “Law” RSS feed over a decade ago, and lit looks like only you and Popehat have survived. And he’s pivoted to podcasting. Groklaw, Patry, Lessig, Appellate Squawk, Shades of Grey, Jourdan, Ben Sheffner, Benjamin Duranske, and others all faded away. I’m about your median age, having recently retired from four decades in financial IT governance and oversight. I appreciate your criminal defense perspective, your view from Long Island, and your relentless skewering of fads. I’ve never commented before because I have nothing substantive to contribute to your topics, and I’ve seen how you treat casual sloppy thinkers.
I was an appellate public defender when you started your blog and I began reading it and sharing links with family, friends and colleagues. Eventually moved into the administration of our statewide agency. I’m retired five years now, doing nothing but having fun, and I still cruise by probably once a week. Cheers!
I have been reading since close to the beginning of your posts. I enjoy your writing and your thoughts. You help me think things through. I also enjoy learning from you. I am an old housewife with a high school education. Learning about the trials and tribulations of lawyers has been eye opening. For me, you represent another view of the world. Thank you for all your time and thoughts.
Semi-retired financial systems analyst and accountant. I’ve been reading here since 2010, maybe longer. I’ve commented a few times, but trash most of my comments because they would make people more stupid. I love to read, and will read anything that’s well written. This blog is among the best written out there. It makes me think, and that’s important as I get older(just started Medicare) and want to keep my brain functioning.
Everyone should read daily. And everyone should learn at least one new thing daily. If you stop learning, you stop living.
I’m a regular reader and not infrequent poster. I wasn’t going to chime in, but as other regulars have I’ll do so. In some ways this has turned into a intro thread. So, I’m 65, was in high tech sales and ran the European office for a Fortune 500 company. Had some health problems and then, while recovering, served as caregiver for my folks for over a decade. So, with not earning during many of my prime earning years my “golden years” are going to be a bit short on the gold (though I’ve been able to contribute to the tip jar on occasion). Still, I’d do it again. So, I can’t complain.
I once characterized my politics as being “at the point where libertarian meets European style social democracy”. The person I was speaking with told me, “That’s a narrow isthmus, often covered with water at high tide”. I recognize that there’s an inherent conflict between respecting the rights of the individual and the interests of society at large. Our Bill of Rights isn’t perfect, but IMO a damn good
effort at insuring the rights of the individual will be respected. I’m not sure that I’d hold it in much higher regard if I’d seen Moses come down from the mountain carrying it, along with the ten commandments, graven in stone.
I also recognize that we have an obligation to help those less fortunate and that taxes are the cost of living in a civilized society. I never begrudged them when I was making good money and think that we’d be better served with social welfare and educational systems more like some of the Northern European countries.
The sentiment expressed above, “I don’t always agree with your perspective on things but I admire your intellectual honesty and your writing is always worth reading” echoes something I’ve said to Scott on a couple of occasions. His writing has caused me to rethink my position on a number of issues and to change my mind on more than a few. Given his dislike of “tummy rubs”, I’ll content myself with saying that I’ve learned a great deal here, appreciate his efforts and the quality of discourse overall, and hope to continue to do so for sometime.
Hi boss! It’s the jokes guy!
I’m a late 50s IT guy from Oregon. I’m also a recovering New Yorker whose father was a litigator and heavily involved in the NYCLU so I have an interest in the law. Politically I’m a disillusioned 80s liberal who keeps wondering when the Democratic Party will come to its senses. I found SJ around 2013 as a link from somewhere.
I hang out on political Tumblr a lot and some young people read, some don’t. My impression is that the ones with pronouns and mental health diagnoses in their bios get their talking points from Twitter and TikTok and are more concerned with being on the approved side of any issue than its content. These are the ones who signed letters supporting Hamas on October 8. I also follow people on Tumblr who clearly read, and gleefully demolish the political fashionistas.
As an aside I got my handle from Slashdot and keep it for tradition.
Middle-aged aerospace engineer on the Left Coast so I’m always three hours late to the party 😉
I probably average about one comment per week, usually of the snarky/acerbic kind. Which masks a deep love for our unique country and especially our freedoms, and when I’m the most acerbic it’s usually because some idiot (left or right, well-meaning or not, doesn’t matter) is disingenuously trying to trample all over these unique freedoms, usually the freedom of speech or of the press or other 1st Amendment rights, but the freedoms guaranteed by the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments come in for plenty of abuse too (and who knows, the illiberal forces in our nation may eventually get around to the 3rd, and the 9th and 10th have been toothless for many decades).
I perceive in our esteemed host a similar posture, best expressed to my knowledge by the flawed (as we all are) but great (as we should all aspire to be) Thomas Jefferson: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” As long as that sentiment is here, I’ll keep coming by.
And maybe the discussions made possible here and a few other places will eventually work their way into the brains of the youngz; it’s worth trying.
Committed lurker for more than 10 years – mainly because I don’t think my few cents worth on any item would add to the collective knowledge of your esteemed audience.
European government lawyer, working mainly on legislation, here for the law and insights on how the US system works.
You (and your regular commentators) never disappoint and always inform.
I’m a lurker, if “lurker” means frequent reader who doesn’t comment. I discovered this blog in 2015 or 2016, when you were often posting about Title IX. I became interested in that topic in law school when I published a student note on the Title IX standard of proof in our law review. (Another student wrote the note.) I found your commentary insightful and unafraid.
I typically read your posts via Feedly (and before that Google Reader). Rarely do I venture to the main site.
Although my law practice focuses on civil plaintiffs’ work, I enjoy reading about topics beyond my areas of expertise. Your writing scratches some of that itch.
Over the years, I have marveled at your ability to churn out meaningful work (of not insignificant length) almost daily while maintaining an active law practice. I also greatly appreciate the consistency of your views and principles. Our national discourse would be greatly improved if more people took your approach.
All that said, do you want more commenters? I’ve eschewed commenting here and elsewhere because I see little value because everyone’s positions are so entrenched. But if you’re desiring more responses, say so. Either way, I hope you continue to write.
I’m a long-time lurker who very infrequently comments on topics about which I might have some level of useful knowledge, which primarily means wrestling and the many follies of life in Louisiana. I’ve been hanging around and reading since somewhere around 2010. Professionally, I’m now a high school teacher after having spent a decade or so toiling as an adjunct in Indiana and Michigan. I’m married to a no longer practicing patent lawyer who switched fields and is now a PACU nurse
Long time lurker, very occasional commenter. Canadian lawyer in my early 70s, retired (2018). Subscribed to SJ while I was still practicing. Never did criminal law (other than a few minor cases through the Clinic at law school in the early 80s), but generally admire those that do.
People that know me well would consider me to be on “the Left”, but I no longer recognize many of my “fellow travellers”. Adherence to core principles and appreciation of nuance seem increasingly in short supply.
I find SJ generally thoughtful and often provocative, which is why I am still subscribed.
40 year old Senior Chief Culinary Specialist in the United States Coast Guard. I first came across your website back in 2013 (I cant remember who directed me here. It was either Radley Balko or Ken White that shared a link) and was hooked since. I dont typically comment because I am not a lawyer and I dont want to be that guy who makes an idiotic statement and then gets laid into or given the Billy Madison Award. I read your site every day. When I was underway I would wake up, do my paperwork, and use our AOL era speed internet to check in. Love what your write as it has changed my perspectives on things from the sex offender registry, defense lawyers, and many other subjects. One of my good friends (now retired) worked with your father when he was an Auxiliarist in Florida at Station Lake Worth. Now back to the shadows.
Retired environmental engineer specializing in renewable energy. I don’t always agree with you but I always find your comments thoughtful and interesting. I’ve learned a lot about the law lurking here. Keep up the good work.
I disagree with you often on “woke” issues but your perspective is invaluable. I have been practicing law for 42 years mostly on the defense side, both criminal and civil. You hit the nail on the head about young people including young “progressive” law associates who often are so devoted to ideology that they cannot adequately defend my clients. They don’t devour Supreme Court teachings and cases in our Second Circuit. Whatever your political views, lack of objectivity and failure to read in the era of AI and instant Tik Tok gratification has dramatically reduced research skills of even the lost talented young lawyers, many of who rarely print out copies of cases they propose I should rely on in briefs that I sign. I still read and check every case that I cite and indeed, I trust cases provided by my young law associates less now than ever before. Do our law schools still teach people how to read cases and conduct research ? I doubt it.
Well, this is exactly who I thought your readership had become. You’re a cranky conservative white asshole and that’s who still listens. I’m sure you love your echo chamber.
Jay,
If you think Scott is a conservative… you really need to get out more.
I’m a 78-year-old retired scientist. I’m kind of a “redneck racist Republican” myself, so I tend to disagree with a lot of your opinions; but I really approve of the fact that you argue from reason and logic, rather than feelings and emotions. … Keep up the good work!
Long time reader of your blog. 10+ years. Not a lawyer, haven’t needed to do much with lawyers, either. Simply interested in law. I read this blog because I always learn something. Though close to becoming elderly, the mind remains keen about learning.
Commercial litigation lawyer. In the south. Early fifties. Regular reader for five or more years, because this place generally reflects a better level of public discourse, often with a little humor or wit. Can’t find that in a lot of print media anymore, and certainly not on teevee “news” channels. End of tummy rub.
Every year, from you: “why do I do this?” Every year, the answers are the same:
Because you must.
Because it matters. And it matters to a whole lot more than us lawyers.
Score one for the IANAL crowd.
Thank you, my friend.
From your friendly local ex-Hotel bar bard.
Retired electrical engineer and computer scientist. Long term lurker, daily reader. As Josh puts it, “I read to learn.”
I’m a retired securities litigator (big law type, defending SEC enforcement actions, some parallel federal criminal actions, private class actions, and m&a litigation). I Wrote a blog about securities enforcement issues for a couple of years, but lacked your commitment and stamina and gave it up when I retired. Your blog has been an oasis of sanity for the last few years. I often recommend it to others, but millenials and more recent cohorts don’t seem to want to focus on thought provoking dialogs. With the demise of reliable media, and the decline of journalism, it is comforting to have a place to go where thinking is allowed, and even encouraged, and folks recognize that facts matter. The commenters, or at least the ones that get past your veto, add to the sense of sanity because they tend to be thoughtful even in the midst of disagreement. And the music interludes are enlightening and much appreciated.
I am a lurker. I have been reading your blog almost every day for several years, although I refrain from commenting because I understand your blog is for lawyers and comments from the peanut gallery are not really welcome.
I find your writing quite interesting even though I have no legal training.
I worked in Silicon Valley most of my life. I used to manage a group of software engineers developing specialized software for designing microchips. Now I’m retired and living abroad.
I do read books, even ones with chapters in them. I can even do it without moving my lips.
My greatest dream is to get a tummy rub from you, Scott. But with each passing year I realize that it will probably never happen.
I live in a European country with an illiberal leader who is not quite ready to put Putin’s pants on. My background is in decades in IT, not quite preparing me for commenting here. I continue to read as the education provided by our host shapes us as intellectuals. Old style as that may be, but not beholden to ideology.
Low-level Australian govt employee, aged 50 yrs. Introduced to Simple Justice about fifteen years ago probably via something on arstechnica.com that Ken White or Marc Randazza were involved in.
Have been daily reader since. One of only five or six blogs I have followed for that long – all others lost to time, link rot, expired hosting. I miss the Umpire’s contributions both before and after they made him shut down his own blogging. Esteemed company, part of your secret sauce, Scott.
No expertise in field, so no license to contribute, made very clear to me after first few exuberant posts years ago.
More strength to your elbow. Thank you for shining your unique light on lawyerly things for the benefit of us yokels.
Greetings from Bunbury, Western Australia.
I am a 42 year old criminal defense paralegal. I have worked for Public Defenders since 2009. I found SJ as a consequence of Rakofsky v. The Internet, and followed all the defendants I could find. I read this blog because it is a window into a keen legal mind that I respect. As others have said, I learn how to think here. Not what to think, but the method and process of thinking, and grounding thought in principle over tribalism. It is a regular and welcome challenge.
Since October 7th this blog has helped more than anything else I’ve read to sharpen the distinction between liberal and progressive, for which I am grateful. I’ve previously been dismissive of “woke” terminology, but I can no longer deny the way it fittingly describes a fanatical fringe of nutjobs.
Almost retired Broadcast Engineer (Radio/Television), long time reader, VERY rare commenter (usually only when you hit my area of expertise). I gave up on main stream media years ago as I’ve been involved in “making the sausage” and know how easy it is to manipulate the narrative to tell the story you want. Video editing leaves no traces in the metadata, and we won’t even discuss Deep Fakes. Frankly the capabilities of video fakery scare the hell out of me–I believe maybe 10% of what I see.
And I’ve wandered off topic (again).
I read because I enjoy Scott’s perspective–always thought provoking.
I’m amazed at the breadth and depth Howl’s and Guitar Dave’s musical knowledge (y’all Really Need to go to the Kerrville Folk Festival–y’all would have a blast).
Mr Seaton Esq.’s Friday essays–’nuff said.
Thank you to all the commenters for (mostly) cogent input, and to Scott for hosting “this here hotel”
Thank you for the mention, but I have to tell you that I don’t really have any exceptional musical knowledge.
But what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me want to present music that may or may not be relevant to the topic. I will look for it, I will find it, and I will post it.
“I will look for it, I will find it, and I will post it.”
Don’t stop, my friend.
My broken body won’t let me make it.
And when I go digging thru the record vault, something else breaks.
Life without the one thing that keeps you sane, sucks.
Maybe I’ll get over it…but till then, like i said… don’t stop. Thank you.
Hey, Pops. Bunch of olds you got reading your stuff, or at least those lurkers willing to step out from behind the shadows. You need to start releasing a bunch of really short videos where you talk into the camera or else you’ll lose the young’uns entirely. It’s the only way.
I found you in law school and lurked for a bit before opening my mouth getting smacked down a few or more times. Being stubborn, I kept at it. Now I’m mid-thirties and still practicing. All civil. The non-gunslinger stuff. I keep coming back for your perspective particularly on the going-ons in criminal land.
Thanks for asking the question. The responses are interesting.
Still here, reading every day. Or almost. Appreciate your efforts, even in a lost cause. And it is most emphatically a lost cause.
Former lawyer who currently does non-law-related gub’mint work in the Great White North. Found your site (via ATL, maybe?) in 2008-2009 or thereabouts when I was a baby lawyer. Always appreciated your thoughtful takes on topics, whether I agreed or not, and your unwillingness to put up with nonsense just because somebody happens to post it.
38 year old active service Armour Officer in the frozen north of Canada. We only get to be who we are because you Americans are who you are. But how do you get the way you are? So I read. Stumbled across you a long while back, and read you every day so I am not misled about the consequences of various legal issues.
Like, it looks like you gotta lotta likes here. Apparently, you have rizz. Will you be sitting at the cool kids’ table henceforth? When will we see you on tik tok?
KUTGW – Keep up the good work
I’m a 45 year old small business owner. I stumbled across the blog some time during Trump’s presidency, but don’t remember exactly when. I appreciate the way you look at the world, often removing extraneous emotional b.s. from hot topics and taking a more logical approach. I check in with some regularity and try to read most of the posts. I come here whenever there’s a hot-button legal issue in the news, because I know there’s a better chance of getting some actual analysis as opposed to a bunch of network bloviating.
53 year old transplanted Kiwi in the Great White North of Ottawa, Canada. Not a lawyer (physics major) but was put onto the blog by a good friend. Often feel compelled to make comments but they usually fall into the camp of wandering off subject or the comment has already been made by the time I figure the words out (math easy, english hard)
47 yr old big firm corporate lawyer in the south. Have always been fascinated with criminal law and civil liberty issues. Politics tend toward the libertarian side, so both like and hate various Rs and Ds positions. Been reading your blog for 7-10 years at this point.
What they all said. So long as you keep writing, I’ll keep reading. You make me think about stuff.
I am a software engineer in my 60s and have been reading your blog for at least 10 years. I am libertarianish which means I am disliking both parties more and more. I enjoy reading you because I can count on a non-partisan, principled view on legal issues. You force me to think by challenging my views and scold me when I am an idiot.
48 yr old government lawyer (child protection) in New Brunswick, Canada. Been reading almost every day since some post was referenced in the WSJ sometime around 2010 or so (or maybe 2008 – I can’t remember). Don’t always agree, and occasionally I simply skip posts which come across more as ranting than helpful commentary (one of your responses to the Dobbs decision and a few of your Trump posts fall into that category). However, I find your observations on the interactions between law and politics to be often stimulating and can help me get my mind going in the morning (along with the Volokh posts I read).
I’ve never contributed $$ because since you drink Bowmore, I conclude that you make quite a bit more money than me and do not need my contributions more than I do.
Since you asked…
40, computer tech and music tech, been reading since at least ten years ago (probably found through some other blawg), and in that time I’ve gone through the entire archive at least once. Never had social media, don’t understand kids these days, but have seen a lot of them through music.
My current bandmates are largely about 10 years younger than me. I try to convince them that facebook and tik tok are not the real world and self promotion online is a sucker’s game. They disagree and call me an old man. I like to think that I lead by example, and that if I continue being responsible and keeping my financial house in order some of it will rub off. Please do not disabuse me of this notion; it’s all I have left.
In contrast, I’ve had no luck whatsoever with anyone 20 years younger than me. I cannot communicate with them. The aftermath of Oct 7 pushed me over the edge (for all the same reasons detailed by our host); I have just about written them off as a generation completely. That’s not a happy thought.
I still read Simple Justice weekday-ly. Partly because it makes me smarter and more knowledgeable. Partly because it’s the only port left in the storm.
I am an aged lawyer from Australia.
I barely do any criminal work but I have an abiding distrust of policing authorities, a distrust doubtless coloured by libertarian/anarchist tendencies*. The unequal power of the state over the individual leads in my view to far too many innocent people facing the courts and, worse, some being convicted.
I read the blog because it brings a measured and intelligent analysis to such matters and to US issues, particularly political issues, with a legal character.
All of the major online newspapers abhorrently conflate opinion with facts. Scott Greenfield pleasingly distinguishes between statements of fact and expressions of his opinion.
I hope that I give no offence by advising that I intend to continue lurking.
(*I note that Australian libertarians differ from our American cousins in one major way – we tend not to oppose gun control and view the enthusiasm for weaponry in the US with benign but genuine puzzlement).
Still here pal – almost since the beginning (I do miss the good old days of the blawgosphere). You, Mark Bennett and Ken and Patrick have been a real boon to this defense investigator’s education.
Started reading in 2014 when I began supporting an insurance company legal department – wanted to see how lawyers think. A daily pleasure now.
Been reading for about ten years, got into the blog due to simple fascination with the subject matter and how folks in your profession view current events, but your conviction, insight and excellent writing keeps me here reading every single post. I work in Contracts but am NAL.
I am strictly a lurker, but I have been reading your blog for the past six years or so. I am a 50 year old patent attorney, and, like many others, I was tired of the garbage and shallow thinking that exists in most news outlets. I found your blog those several years ago by doing an Internet search for law blogs. I do not always agree, but I enjoy reading your posts. The writing is very good, and your points require me to think and question my own conclusions in light of your arguments. I will also say that I very much enjoy the comments. There is great critical thinking and wisdom included in many of those comments as well, which further adds to my enjoyment. Additionally, as a result of finding your blog, I was able to continue to hear the feedback from B. Mcleod, which I very much enjoyed when I perused the comments on the ABA website.
A few years ago when you talked more frequently about young lawyers, I would visit more often but now I lurk once in a while.
I’ve made it a point this year to spend less time reading opinionated blogs, including “that one.” But I’ll visit regularly.
See you soon.
I am what most would consider young. And I read plenty. Contrary to what that NYT comment section would say, I read all the way through. All the big words even.
I don’t comment, because I figure if they’re coming to Mr. Greenfield’s blog they’re interested in what he has to say, not what I do. So I lurk. I got tired really quickly of all those times to a reaction to something depends more on what team a person’s on rather than what they’re saying or doing, and I’ve come to really value the perspectives of people who are guided by principle rather than party. I think it helps keep me grounded in an environment where many of the other people I regularly hear from seem to approach social matters and current events like they’re scoring points for their team in some weird sport.
So that’s really what keeps me coming around here. I’ll be here reading, but you probably won’t hear from me again, so I’ll just say thanks for sharing your thoughts, SHG. They are appreciated.
LocoYokel here. 56 years and refusing to grow up. Reading every day, post occasionally and get slapped most times I do. Reading to learn, in spite your opinion of what my learning ability is.
I’m a 44 year-old automation engineer from the Detroit area, Canadian immigrant, part-time farmer, former reservist. So what am I doing hanging out on a law blog? Well, I’ll admit part of it is that I find entertainment in human folly, and the legal system is rich with it, from Sovereign Citizens to whatever the hell is going on with Laurence Tribe. But law is also a very curious beast in that we’re all required to comply with it, every citizen is (at least nominally) supposed to have a say in crafting it, and yet very few have any understanding of it. I come here in the hopes that I can, as a layman, at least understand it better than if relied on the usual media sources for analysis.
I read how long you’ve been doing this blawg and thought that can’t be right, can it? I’ve been a very long time lurker and reader. I’m fairly certain I’ve been reading since very close to the beginning of this blawg. I work in ‘legal services,’ if that’s a thing. Worked for a court reporting company for 20ish years now, doing just about everything (not court reporting though). I’ve spent a good amount of “quality time,” with attorneys in the courtroom, handling exhibits, presentation, technology, etc. *
I’ve always been interested in law and the legal system. Particularly criminal law. I’ve learned a lot reading this blawg. I’ve learned a lot just from some of the comments here. While I don’t always agree with certain things, the legal insights and discussions are always illuminating, and generally quite educational.
One of the things that has always been great about this blawg is the recognition that there are no simple answers. Even some complicated answers might not be sufficient to fix something, and this blawgs refusal to say otherwise was, and is, a breath from fresh air. It might not be what anyone wants to hear, but it needs to be said, so maybe we can all stop for a second and really think about actual solutions, rather than simple (stupid) answers to very complicated problems.
Thanks for your efforts to shine a light where most flick the flashlight off the moment things get hard. It has been a great pleasure reading here all these years.
* I’ve actually done presentation work for I think 2 criminal trials. Absolute nightmare. One of the most difficult jobs I’ve done stress wise.
Like Ernie Oellrich, came here 10 or 15 years ago from Radley Balko or Ken White. One of only 2 blogs (along with weit) i still read nearly every day as there is new, usually interesting and informative content. Unemployed 68 year old lab technician. Kind of liked the smackdowns but they haven’t helped my ability to write clearly on topic and communicate my view.
I won’t hazard a guess as to where I fall on the lurker vs. regular scale here. I was a CDL for years but am more accurately described in my current job as a “criminal lawyer.” That is, I still practice criminal law but not as an advocate. I’ll leave it at that in terms of work.
I was a late bloomer, legally speaking. (Turns out, going to law school in your late 20s / early 30s is for the best.) Heading into law school, there were two things I knew I would NEVER do: (1) litigate in court (I hate public speaking); and (2) practice criminal law (it had zero appeal to me). I had my sites set on other areas of the law.
As a 2L, I externed for a federal district court judge. He presided over a white collar trial in which Ted Wells represented one of the defendants. His advocacy was a site to behold. But I still wasn’t sold on criminal law. Then, as a rising 3L, I spent a calendar year interning at the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office for a pair of old timer PDs. (They had about 60 years of PD work between them.) Best education I ever received.
Once I passed the Bar, I hung out my shingle as a solo CDL until the end of 2018, when I closed up shop and took my current job. During that time, I handled one civil matter, a contract dispute. It was the most uncivil legal experience I’ve ever had. I hated it so much I swore I would never handle a civil case again. That remains true to date.
If memory serves correct, I believe I stumbled across across Fault Lines, which had closed by that time, and felt like I missed out on the party. That, in turn, lead me to SJ. I read it daily or almost daily, primarily for the thought-provoking posts. A close second would be the advice you frequently dispense with.
Much obliged.
PD here who has been reading since 2009 or 2010 (it’s been awhile – sorry I don’t remember exactly). I comment rarely enough that you never recognize my name when I do post.
I think you might get more comments if the same 5 people who are basically Bill but MAGA didn’t flood the comments with nonsense. The last few years most of the times I want to comment is because one of them says something so utterly moronic I want to slap them down. But usually my sense prevails that everyone can read how stupid they are without me explaining it.
I’m a 99% lurker simply because I almost never have the expertise required to contribute to the discussion- I’m a food scientist, not a lawyer. With very few exceptions (mostly ones so finely focused on a legal point that I don’t understand them) I enjoy everything I read here- and more than just enjoy it, I believe I benefit from it. Sometimes you introduce me to events and ideas I hadn’t seen before, sometimes you post a contradiction to what I think and it makes me consider the alternatives, sometimes I already thought what you thought but didn’t know how best to express it.
I’m not really sure if you’re asking for our opinions or feedback, but the only thing I can think to say is that when you get dialed in on a particular issue I notice the comment quality devolving- it’s like the unhinged see 3 posts in a week that align with their biases and decide it’s time to come out of the woodwork with nonsense. I don’t think that’s your fault, just something I’ve seen.
As with all creators, you owe me absolutely nothing and if the time comes when you want to take a hiatus or retire the blog I’ve got no standing to complain, but I hope that’s a long time coming. This blog makes me smarter and better informed for having read it.
Late 30s Military. I don’t have a political bent, I like good policy grounded in logic and thoughtful debate from smart people.
I have read for years everyday because I like your well reasoned logical arguments (even when I don’t agree).
Still here, Professional Engineer who has been following for longer then many, but not as long as some. As long as you are writing, i will be reading.
Still here, still reading.
For whatever little it’s worth, I still read somewhat regularly & still find your posts consistently thought provoking and well reasoned even though I probably disagree to some extent about half of the time.
I’m apparently not a good commenter within the context of the blog. I still need prior approval for my rare comments to appear. But it’s not my blog so I have nothing to complain about.
Still here. A decade+ of mostly lurking, the occasional blast of support, and the periodic open disagreement and/or earned dressing down by the host of that blog. And I will continue to read until the day it finally ceases to exist. This blog has taught me a ton about the law, and in my position, I’m grateful for the on-the-job training.
Pediatric ICU doctor here from a family of lawyers.
About a year of lurking and occasional comment.