Jan Crawford (fka Jan Crawford Greenburg), author of Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court, has returned to the legal blogosphere with “Crossroads,” a new legal blog at CBSNews.com. Crawford left ABC News several months ago to join CBS News as their new Chief Legal Correspondent, but could not start with CBS until now because of a non-compete agreement in the old contract.
Her first post, “Auld Lang Syne,” went up today. It discusses the new gig at CBS, her recent jury duty experience, and other changes in her life. Given her past work — at the NewsHour, ABCNews, the (short-lived) Legalities blog and Supreme Conflict — I am much looking forward to her new blog. Welcome back, Jan!
Orin Kerr says:
Seconded.
January 1, 2010, 11:07 pmSyd Henderson says:
Thanks for the alert. That looks like it will be well worth reading whether I agree with her or not.
January 1, 2010, 11:34 pmCornellian says:
Her first post was fun to read. I like the part where the Judge excuses her from jury duty then adds that he thought her Supreme Court book was terrific.
January 1, 2010, 11:40 pmChrisTS says:
I expect the blog to be great. But, I bet she would also have been great on the jury.
January 2, 2010, 12:08 amDave N. says:
I second Cornellian.
While I might not always agree with Jan Greenburg, if her future posts are as engaging as her first, her blog will be a regular part of my online reading schedule.
January 2, 2010, 2:04 amdrunkdriver says:
Awesome. She’s a terrific talent, that Supreme Court book may be the best lay press book of its type. It surely has few rivals.
And Joan, if you’re reading this, now that you’re single . . .
January 2, 2010, 10:14 amAnton says:
The first thing I see when I go to Crawford’s new blog is a “@KatieCouric” ad in the top right-hand corner of the page. Yech! I can’t look at that cougar’s mug. Now I’ve got to delete my bookmark and feed from Crossroads.
My loss, but there is no option. My adblocker won’t stop the horror…
January 2, 2010, 10:49 amCornellian says:
I bought her Supreme Court book on the basis of very positive reviews from a wide range of people who rarely agree on anything. I haven’t read it yet but it’s sitting on my table in the “pending” stack.
January 2, 2010, 10:54 amTest 1 « Test2010 says:
[...] This is a test. hERE IS AN OLC post. And is here a test link to VC. [...]
January 2, 2010, 11:01 amDave N. says:
Um, it’s Jan, not Joan. At least if you believe the movie, Joan Crawford wasn’t exactly either Mother-of-the-Year or a particularly great catch.
January 2, 2010, 11:04 amDave N. says:
Um, its Jan Crawford, not Joan. At least if you believe the movie, Joan Crawford was neither Mother-of-the-Year nor a particularly great catch. Besides that, she’s dead.
January 2, 2010, 11:08 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Welcome (Back) Jan Crawford -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Jakubik, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Welcome (Back) Jan Crawford: Jan Crawford (fka Jan Crawford Greenburg), author of Supreme Conflict: The Inside .. http://bit.ly/8vuLTT [...]
January 2, 2010, 11:31 amCornellian says:
One interesting legal point in her post is that she says she wasn’t working due to the non-compete and she also wasn’t getting paid. I’m surprised you can have an enforceable non-compete that doesn’t involve paying the person during the time period in which they can’t work. I suppose it must be quite narrowly drawn in other respects. I wouldn’t expect a blanket “you can’t work and we won’t pay you” clause to be enforceable.
January 2, 2010, 12:15 pmDave N. says:
Cornellian,
I found that interesting, too. I was wondering why CBS didn’t pay her, knowing that she was starting in January, and obviously hiring her for her “star” power.
January 2, 2010, 12:36 pmArthurKirkland says:
Some provisions are triggered by employer-initiated termination of the employment relationship. In other words: ‘You’re fired, you won’t be paid, and you can’t work.’
Some employers have legitimate reasons to establish and enforce non-competition provisions, but many judges strive gymnastically to invalidate particularly harsh ones.
January 2, 2010, 12:44 pmWick R. Chambers says:
Thanks very much for the heads up.
January 2, 2010, 12:54 pmSteveMG says:
Thank goodness.
Anyone can do a better job than her predecessor, the frankly awful Andrew Cohen. The man was just incapable of understanding any non-liberal view about the law.
January 2, 2010, 1:26 pmhattio says:
Anybody want to bet the bench conference went something like this.
Judge “She’s smart, famous, and I don’t want her publishing all the mistakes I make. What do you guys think?”
Lawyers “Hell yeah judge, boot her.”
January 2, 2010, 2:25 pmAlan says:
So you approve of wire hangers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
January 2, 2010, 3:07 pmJoe says:
As to her book being so grand that people who probably would not agree on much would at least agree on that, my experience has been that there has been a notable ideological splits on that front.
I personally enjoyed Charles Fried book on constitutional analysis and Rehnquist’s book on the Court. So, my interest on this front is not only to read books by people I’m most ideologically sympathetic. I also read several of the ones about the Warren, Burger and Rehnquist courts, finding them a mixed bag. I simply did not find her book that good. I question some of her analysis, but that is not the only reason.
But, the more the merrier on the blog front.
January 2, 2010, 3:08 pmDave N. says:
Alan,
I don’t even use wire hangers for my suits. However, Drunkdriver appeared to be fishing for a date and I thought he should at least have the prospective Mrs. Drunkdriver’s first name right.
January 2, 2010, 5:13 pmOrin Kerr says:
hattio,
Notably, though, she had just served on a criminal jury a few weeks earlier in superior court:
Three days of deliberation. Yikes, that’s not fun.
January 2, 2010, 8:13 pmdrunkdriver says:
What do you expect from, well, a drunk. Oh well.
SteveMG, I agree that Cohen was awful. What made him bad to me was not his liberalism, but the superficiality of his analysis, which bordered on misstating the law and the facts of cases. His work actually sounded like it was written by a non-lawyer, and a shrill non-lawyer at that. I am glad to learn he’s gone.
January 2, 2010, 11:26 pmocnse says:
yeah, welcome, great author
January 2, 2010, 11:49 pmsk says:
Sounds interesting, but since she works for the MSM, I’ll be missing it. Oh, well. Her loss.
Sk
January 3, 2010, 7:10 amAlan says:
I was just joking with you. Bad joke; I confess. Sorry.
January 4, 2010, 7:45 pm