Law blogs are abuzz this morning over the leaked news that the White House has selected Eric Turkewitz as the first official law blogger. You can find coverage here, here, here, and here. I looked into the story, and it’s legit: According to folks I talked to, there’s no small annoyance that Turkewitz himself leaked the story on his blog, but he is indeed going to be the first White House Law Blogger. (And I suppose you should expect a blogger to leak that kind of a story — it’s a pretty bloggy thing to do.)
A few quick thoughts:
1) Does the White House really need a law blog? The White House already has a general blog, but my best sense is that no one reads it. I realize that the White House can do what it wants, but it strikes me as a bit creepy that the White House would hire a law blogger to try to influence the blawgosphere. I realize I’m on the libertarian side, but this strikes me as an area that the private sector can handle pretty well. Or so it seems to me, at least.
2) What about Marty Lederman? With all due respect to Eric Turkewitz, the Obama Administration has already hired a great law blogger: Marty Lederman, formerly of Balkinization. I don’t think Turkewitz can hold a candle to Lederman when it comes to blogging about the Executive branch: I’m a bit disappointed that the White House picked Turkewitz for the spot over Lederman. (I suppose I’m not surprised, though: Lederman was very critical of the Bush Administration, and the Obama folks may fear he would train that same critical eye on them. Better to pick someone with less experience in criticizing the Executive branch for an internal blogger.)
3) What does the introduction of a White House law blog mean for the legal blogosphere? At first blush, I tend to think this shows that the legal blogosphere is getting pretty important: The White House realizes, quite properly, that a lot of attitudes towards new laws and legal developments are being framed by legal bloggers. I suspect that over time we’ll see this development as a natural one: In 10 or 20 years, it will seem totally natural that there is a White House law blog that is part of the blogospheric mix. That’s my best sense, at least.
U.Va. Grad says:
It gets even worse — word is they’re going to pardon Bill Lerach and hire him on as their securities litigation blogger.
April 1, 2010, 11:04 amGuy says:
it strikes me as a bit creepy that the White House would hire a law blogger to try to influence the blawgosphere.
I don’t see how it’s any different from holding a press conference or sending people to cable talk shows. Sure, it’s less formal, but as long as people are talking it’s in any administration’s best interest to be engaged in the discussion, and the “creepiness” is probably just because you’re not used to the government reaching out in such an informal way, it’ll probably seem natural after you get used to it. Then again I don’t hold a degree in communications so feel free to disregard my opinion.
April 1, 2010, 11:11 amShag from Brookline says:
If law blogs have the potential to provide self defense (words as arms?), then perhaps both the 1st and 2nd Amendments provide cover.
Query whether the White House legal blog will permit comments? compete with stats of other legal blogs? come to the attention of courts?
This might encourage the establishment of even more legal blogs. Maybe some time in the future, every lawyer may have a legal blog.
April 1, 2010, 11:13 amConnie says:
Sorry, read the headline and missed the “L” in its final word. Coke on my monitor, etc.
April 1, 2010, 11:16 amlirpa loof says:
Where in the Constitution does it say that the President of the United States has the authority to hire a blogger? In all of the discussions of inherent executive power in the Federalist Papers, not one mention of a blogger.
April 1, 2010, 11:18 amSSFC says:
For that matter, where does it say the President has the authority to hire a National Security Advisor, or a filing clerk, or a chef? OUR GOVERNMENT IS ONE OF LIMITED POWERS!
Seriously, the choice of a medmal lawyer is going to be more red meat for the dogs, come November. Awful decision.
April 1, 2010, 11:33 amB.D. says:
It’s April 1st, right?
April 1, 2010, 11:39 amElliot says:
I wonder if Turkewitz will open comments?
April 1, 2010, 12:10 pmSuperSkeptic says:
If they do allow comments, how will they moderate them? I’m not familiar with any other government websites allowing comments with comment moderation; but, depending on what they censor, I could see that coming to the attention of the courts.
Would a policy similar to Professor Kerr’s policy be deemed constitutional? As applied to _______?
April 1, 2010, 12:15 pmShelbyC says:
Agreed. Not buying it.
April 1, 2010, 12:19 pmMark Field says:
Glenn Greenwald turned them down?
April 1, 2010, 12:21 pmMark Field says:
Agree that this has the hallmarks of an April Fool joke. Hence my comment.
April 1, 2010, 12:22 pmjosh says:
“it strikes me as a bit creepy that the White House would hire a law blogger to try to influence the blawgosphere.”
Seriously? Do you have global objections to the executive branch (GOP or Dem) trying to shape public opinion? Just this WH? Just in the area of law? I’m not sure I get it.
April 1, 2010, 12:22 pmG.R. says:
Orin, I’m surprised you didn’t address the obvious question this raises: would it be proper for Justice Ginsburg to post a comment on Turkewitz’s blog?
April 1, 2010, 12:30 pmShelbyC says:
Yeah, the OP and about a third of the comments seem to take the story rather seriously. Maybe I just have a warped sense of subtlety, though.
April 1, 2010, 12:34 pmOrin Kerr says:
Orin, I’m surprised you didn’t address the obvious question this raises: would it be proper for Justice Ginsburg to post a comment on Turkewitz’s blog?
I think it would be clearly improper. At the same time, I have no doubt that she would do it anyway.
April 1, 2010, 12:43 pmSupremecourtjester says:
I think by law it is a competitive civil service job for which an exam must be given.
April 1, 2010, 12:45 pmSara says:
Haw, Haw. Especially, the badly photoshopped picture of him and Obama on his website.
April 1, 2010, 12:53 pmNCWOOD says:
For an April Fool’s joke, Turkewitz is too blithely quoting Bob Bauer.
I’d like to know what he’ll be paid. Kal Penn’s leaving; maybe Turkewitz will get his salary.
April 1, 2010, 12:56 pmSara says:
Ooooh, a 3D, “Harold and Kumar.”
April 1, 2010, 1:01 pmEric says:
Especially, the badly photoshopped picture of him and Obama on his website.
My wife hates the picture. Not just because I look 20 years older than I am, but because I had all of 10 seconds to do it. Sit! Turn! Snap! The President was dealing with health care at the time and didn’t really have a lot of time for me. But, as I’ve told others, a souvenir is a souvenir.
April 1, 2010, 1:03 pmNCWOOD says:
Photo on the blog is Photoshopped. The whole thing’s a crock. I dislike April Fool’s Day, it inspires too much timewasting, mine included.
April 1, 2010, 1:04 pmShelbyC says:
The photo is hillarious. I’m surprised Orin fell for the joke, though.
April 1, 2010, 1:08 pmSnaphappy says:
That is a picture of Obama and Netanyahu with Turkewitz’s head pasted in.
April 1, 2010, 1:09 pmHans Bader says:
It would probably be a shrewd pick. His blog gets cited even by bloggers with divergent viewpoints, like Overlawyered.
April 1, 2010, 1:12 pmSnaphappy says:
Whoops, my fault. It’s George Mitchell.
http://www.state.gov/img/09/30807/2009_0204_obama_mitchell_600_1.jpg
April 1, 2010, 1:15 pmSara says:
We will never really know, but the selective outrage of the OP, coupled with its conclusion that this is the bright wave of the future, leads me in a different direction.
April 1, 2010, 1:21 pmShelbyC says:
Why? I think that once we find out who the White House Law Blogger really is, Orin’s points will be perfectly valid.
April 1, 2010, 1:24 pmSara says:
Just because its odd to me that he says it’s creepy . . . and perfectly natural.
Of course, he could have meant “creep” in the ‘move forward’ sense.
April 1, 2010, 1:36 pmSnaphappy says:
I think “I looked into the story, and it’s legit” is an indication that Orin was knowingly spreading the joke rather than buying it.
Nevertheless, I too look forward to learning who the real law blogger will be.
April 1, 2010, 1:38 pmDG says:
My only concern with this is that its a waste of money. Every time the executive spends taxpayer’s dollars, there should be a question asked: is this necessary?
April 1, 2010, 1:39 pmShelbyC says:
Well, it is creepy. Clearly this is the next portion of the private sector the Obama administration is going after, after taking over the financial sector, the automotive sector, and health care, he’s now going after the law blogosphere.
April 1, 2010, 1:40 pmSara says:
Uh huh. Exactly. Ha. Ha. Ha.
April 1, 2010, 1:43 pmArthur Kirkland says:
It’s not official until a few groups (ACLU, NARAL, NAMBLA, etc.) have a chance to weigh in, but it looks like I will be the Official Commenter of the new White House law blog.
Before my exclusive gig for the White House begins, a mini-scoop for my friends at VC: the official name will be “(We Are) Above The Law” Blog).
I just want to say that the other finalist, Ed Whelan, would have been super, too.
April 1, 2010, 1:50 pmaf says:
I’m shocked and dismayed that Orin fell for this joke. Yet more evidence that beneath his ostensibly reasonable, good-natured exterior, a humorless partisan lurks. The joke here is truly on Orin.
April 1, 2010, 1:53 pmCan't find a good name says:
I just looked at The White House Blog for the first time, and now I understand why Orin said nobody reads it.
April 1, 2010, 1:54 pmShelbyC says:
;-)
April 1, 2010, 2:03 pmjosh says:
Crap. I fell for it.
April 1, 2010, 2:11 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Well, at least this little joke did raise the truly interesting question of whether the First Amendment would prevent an official blogger from moderating comments on the blog, if it existed. Some moot court down the road might be interested in this issue.
April 1, 2010, 2:28 pmneimoller says:
Is this why Stevens, and for a brief period, Roberts, are considering quitting their SCOTUS gigs?
April 1, 2010, 2:30 pmJ Mann says:
I’ve been second guessing actual e-mails from opposing counsel all day, and I fell for this one. Well-played.
April 1, 2010, 2:58 pmIchthyophagous says:
Why doesn’t the admin hire 1000 or 2000 bloggers? Job creation is the #1 priority.
April 1, 2010, 3:04 pmJoseph Slater says:
You people can’t serious believe that Orin “fell” for this, can you? The different spellings of “blogosphere”? The “I realize I’m on the libertarian side, but this strikes me as an area that the private sector can handle pretty well” line? The repeated “. . . me, at least” conclusions?
April 1, 2010, 3:04 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Why the swipe at Prof. Kerr’s libertarian credentials? I happen to know that one of the main reasons I was picked by the White House is my libertarian streak. Ed Whelan was pitching as a libertarian, too, with none other than the InstaLibertarian (and several VCers) vouching for his libertarianism.
See? Everyone is a libertarian these days. That makes your swing at Prof. Kerr all the more puzzling, and cruel.
April 1, 2010, 3:35 pmHow Did the White House Pick Its Law Blogger? « Conservative Crier says:
[...] How Did the White House Pick Its Law Blogger? Jump to Comments READ MORE [...]
April 1, 2010, 3:57 pmShelbyC says:
Not to mention the cheap shots at his spelling. Give the guy a break, dude. I’m sure he feels bad enough after falling for this hoax.
April 1, 2010, 4:03 pmAF says:
You people can’t serious believe that Orin “fell” for this, can you?
No.
April 1, 2010, 4:03 pmjames says:
Orin the moderate is trolling the red-meaters here…
April 1, 2010, 4:06 pmtroll_dc2 says:
If Prof. Kerr posted what he did as a joke, I am disappointed. Apparently he has a sense of humor, which is unbecoming in a law professor.
April 1, 2010, 4:16 pmEric says:
Folks:
I understand and appreciate the deep cynicism of the blogosphere. I’ve been here for awhile.
But the NYT has confirmed it:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/when-lawyers-blog/
To those on the conservative side: Don’t worry, I don’t bite. I’ll be open to discussing all points of view.
April 1, 2010, 4:34 pmA. Zarkov says:
“I realize that the White House can do what it wants, …”
I disagree. We decided a long time ago that we would not have a sovereign in the White House. The presidency, and in particular this president, needs to be reined in. Congress needs to severely cut back on the White House budget to limit the runaway growth of staff, especially the so-called Czars. The White House does not need a law blog, or pretty much any other kind of blog. The First Lady does not need a staff that’s much bigger than that Churchill used to run WWII. Go tour The Cabinet War Rooms in London. One is struck by how small everything is. Of course it had to be small to be underground, but here look at the Map Room, where Churhhill and his staff did much of the WWII strategy. Here’s the main meeting room where Churchill said, “This is the room from which I will lead the war.” Surely First Ladies can do with less. Small is good. Smaller is better.
Fortunately I can now influence at least one person who might get into Congress. I’m going to really push for a reduction in the White House budget.
April 1, 2010, 4:42 pmA. Zarkov says:
Eric if that’s really you, then rest assured I will be doing my best to eliminate your job and many others of a similar ilk. Jobs we don’t need and should not have to pay for. Nothing personal of course. I’m sure your’re a fine fellow.
April 1, 2010, 4:46 pmSnaphappy says:
I appreciate a good joke, and this one was better than the one two years ago about the fantasy baseball case,* but at some point you have to admit that it’s a joke. A good point might be after a link has been posted to the original photo that you cropped your head into.
April 1, 2010, 4:48 pmShelbyC says:
Nice. Well, congrats :-).
April 1, 2010, 4:48 pmSara says:
No, they have not.
April 1, 2010, 5:09 pmJoseph Slater says:
Zarkov:
It. is. April. Fools. Day.
April 1, 2010, 5:21 pmmaybe serious says:
The fact that many of us cannot tell who is kidding, and who is serious, must mean something about our world.
And I seriously mean that. Seriously.
April 1, 2010, 5:39 pmSteve says:
No, they have not.
The fact that they may have un-confirmed it does not make it untrue to state that they confirmed it. Furthermore, you should recall the admonition about people who buy ink by the barrel, now that you’re quibbling over details with the Official White House Law Blogger.
April 1, 2010, 6:05 pmShelbyC says:
Blogospheric chatter and the current date indicate…
April 1, 2010, 6:50 pmFlabbergasted says:
Reminds me of Stinkfist from Tool.
April 1, 2010, 7:16 pmKnuckle deep past the borderline, this may hurt a little but it’s something you’ll get used to.
Relax and take my hand.
Strict says:
Zarkov: “Congress needs to severely cut back on the White House budget to limit the runaway growth of staff”
Your point is interesting – I’d like to see the numbers. I can only find numbers for mid-2009 here. Bush’s 2008 number are here. It looks like Obama’s numbers are bigger, but I don’t feel like counting hundreds of names.
The Administration has also been criticized for the understaffing of several executive agencies and departments. Most notably the Treasury, but also FDA, HUD, OSHA, BOP, USDA, DOD, HHS, as well as various intelligence agencies [FBI, CIA, NSA].
April 1, 2010, 7:36 pmA. Zarkov says:
I’m concerned with the White House staff not, those other agencies, which really might be understaffed for their mission. We now import a lot of food, and I want that tested. I think the SEC needs a big bump up in staff. I’ve seen what happens first hand when a staff get too large: excessive office politics. When everyone is busy you get less of that kind of stuff. The classic work on government bureaucracy is still Parkinson’s Law. The British Colonial Office is a great example. It reached its peak staffing level when Britain had no more colonies. Hilarious and a must read.
April 1, 2010, 8:03 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Why should I pay for testing of food you are nervous about because you choose to buy it from the ChiComs and Wal Mart?
That’s socialism. Compounded by trade with communists.
April 1, 2010, 8:40 pmRichard Riley says:
Hmm. I guess it is an April Fool’s joke – the photoshopped picture is the final proof.
Too bad – I think having a practicing lawyer and not a law professor as lawblogger laureate would have been a good idea!
April 1, 2010, 8:48 pmA. Zarkov says:
You often don’t know the origin of the foods you eat. Some are served to you in restaurants, while some are simply unlabeled. Others are a component used in some food complex. Pretty much all Vitamin C is manufactured in China. Many supplements labeled as coming from an American source use foreign ingredients. In other words, you can’t avoid foreign food even by avoiding WalMart. It’s not a choice we have. Now if the feds want to embargo food imports from (say) China, that’s a different matter.
Of course I know you are being a wise guy. April fool!
April 1, 2010, 10:34 pmOrin Kerr says:
Ok, ok, it was just an April Fools’ joke. (Planned ahead of time so different bloggers would add to the initial post and lend it credibility, etc.)
April 2, 2010, 2:26 amis bankruptcy worse than doing a debt settlement? | Bankruptcy Solution Site says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » How Did the White House … [...]
April 2, 2010, 6:29 amDontTreadOnMe says:
WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? No certificate? Then all of this horrendous non-sense goes away; the czars, healthcare, all of it. The time has come for the President to perform his duty and show us the truth. There are too many questions, too many doubts and he has been dodging far too long. Where there is smoke there is fire. So I ask you Mr. President: WHERE IS YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
April 2, 2010, 7:12 amronbo says:
Too bad. Eric’s a good friend of mine and he’s a tireless blogger. He’d certainly be an upgrade to the current crew at the WH.
April 2, 2010, 11:04 amArthur Kirkland says:
Wait . . . you mean that call inviting me to be the Official Commenter was a lie?
I didn’t beat Ed Whelan for the job on the basis of who is the more faithful libertarian??
Fraud! Can I sue?
April 2, 2010, 5:32 pmWhite House Hires Personal Injury Lawyer to Launch New Blog* | Firms USA says:
[...] either we weren’t alone — or a whole host of others were in on the joke. (Here, here, [...]
April 3, 2010, 12:09 amM. Sean Fosmire says:
See http://is.gd/bcyYe for the post-game analysis.
This truly is a Conspiracy.
April 3, 2010, 7:53 ammemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
@ Orin Kerr
The funny part is that it’s almost impossible to differentiate your April Fool’s joke from the regular postings here on the Constitution.
April 5, 2010, 8:35 amgenes says:
Undermining their own future credibility. Looks like you got punked.
April 5, 2010, 2:42 pmBelow The Beltway » Blog Archive » April Fools Post Mortem Or, The New York Times Gets Punked says:
[...] that was a massive blogosphere-wide April Fools Conspiracy. And I was part of [...]
April 13, 2010, 12:50 pmPolitical Activity Law - Political Law - Election Law · Why doesn’t the White House Blog allow comments? says:
[...] of the excitement generated by news of a new law blog at The White House (Volokh had the news here but it was an April Fool’s prank), some wondered if the new blog would allow comments. [...]
April 13, 2010, 7:59 pmMarvin Cooper says:
Hi thanks for nice information.I cannot tell white house will need law blog or not but every citizen need a personal injury attorney New York.
September 15, 2010, 2:20 am