In Good Company: UTR on Judge Posner's List of "Must-Read" Blogs!

Do you regard this blog as a guilty pleasure? Well, perhaps it's not as guilty as you think.

Judge Richard Posner is a very busy man: he's got places to go, people to see, appeals to decide, books and articles to write, blog posts to publish, and clerks to feed. He sleeps, on average, just six hours a night. But he still takes time out to read UTR, as noted in this interview* with Chris Wolz of Influence (click here, scroll down):

Posner responded with a list of blogs that he said he reads regularly:

Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, Underneath Their Robes, Mickey Kaus, and sometimes Volokh Conspiracy, Global Security, Arts & Literature, and How Appealing. Sometimes others as well, e.g., ones to which Instapundit links.

WOW -- very cool! It's amazing to A3G to think that that remarkable machine, The Posnerian Brain, deems her irreverent ramblings to be worth its extremely valuable time.

So, dear readers of UTR, consider yourselves in good company! (And A3G is in good company too, considering the rather distinguished blogs on Judge Posner's reading list.)

When it comes to Underneath Their Robes, perhaps this assessment, by EDDix, may be right on the money (emphasis in original):

[M]any will find this blog shameless and offensive -- its hooks are unabashedly aimed at the prurient and schadenfreude; then again, anyone who knows the legal profession would not bet against this Blog being a runaway hit. Like The Drudge Report or Page Six, no one in polite society will admit that they read it.... but they all read it....

Despite being a (rather distinguished) member of polite society,** Judge Posner admits that he reads UTR. And for that, A3G is deeply grateful!

* Yes, this interview came out in July; but A3G only learned about it recently, when a reader emailed her about it. And yes, you're right, this post is a transparent attempt to avoid blogging about Harriet Miers...

** Judge Posner is, however, more willing than many lawyers and judges to speak plainly and to cut through the b.s. In this fascinating profile, by Larissa MacFarquhar of the New Yorker, Judge Posner said of himself:

I'm not fully socialized into the legal profession. I’m like an imperfectly housebroken pet. I still have difficulty understanding -- and this is something that most people get over in their first two weeks of law school -- lawyers spouting things that they don't believe. If someone is obviously guilty, why do you have to have all this rigmarole?

Amen, Judge Posner!

Comments

[Michael Wasserman]

One wonders where A3G gets her fine pay, if she's not spouting rigmarole on behalf of the guilty.

[Quickjustice]

Judge Posner's question demonstrates the disconnect between common sense and the realities of the judicial system. If the integrity of the judicial system is not at issue, "obviously guilty" still leaves the question of degree of appropriate punishment wide open, a fertile field for creative legal minds.

And if the integrity of the judicial system is at issue (in jurisdictions such as Brooklyn, N.Y., where state judgeships have at times been for sale to political hacks), then "obviously guilty" is an oxymoron to a corrupt or incompetent judge.

[ic]

" If someone is obviously guilty, why do you have to have all this rigmarole?" Because lawyers are paid by the hour. The more rigmarole they spilled, the more hours they get paid.