How Appalling

Overpundit weighs in on Jeremy Blachman, mean-spirited humor, and material things as a source of self worth here and here.

I think Mr. OP and Jeremy Blachman are right. This is mean-spirited, cynical humor. It's too easy to do anonymously. This blog is done. There are only two jokes left to make that I can think of, and they are:

1) Wow, yesterday was another record-breaking day. How Appalling received XXX hits, topping our previous record of XXX hits. (In fact, yesterday was a record-breaking day; in fact every day has been record-breaking except Sunday.)

2) More jokes about the important people who read and e-mail How Appalling.

Assume these jokes have been made. I've learned something, and though I hope Mr. Bashman continues to devote the insane amount of time he does to How Appealing, I also hope that How Appalling has helped him find a way to take himself a little less seriously.

Today's Recusal News: The Houston Chronicle reports that "Justice steps down in malpractice case," about a Texas Supreme Court Justice who recused himself from a case involving a litigant who had previously supported the Justice's opponent in a primary. The full article is available here.

"Group highlights campaign donations to Nevada Supreme Court." The San Jose Mercury News's report begins, "A large majority of those contributing the most to campaigns of Nevada Supreme Court justices later had cases before the high court."

"SC upholds ban on Togadia's entry in Mangalore." So reports deepiklglobal.com in a report that begins:

The Supreme Court today set aside a Karnataka High Court order lifting the ban imposed on the entry of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Praveen Togadia into Mangalore in February, 2003 to attend a Hindu sammelan.

"The funniest blog in the sphere." So says Overpundit about this blog. Jeremy Blachman points out that it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt. In this case, Blachman himself is bothered by the fact that Overpundit declared that in capturing the title of "funniest blog," How Appalling usurped Blachman. Jeremy makes the point that he has been doing this for a long time and probably shouldn't be bothered that people are amused by this upstart, but he is. He then goes on to criticize this blog as "mean-spirited," and predicts that it will have no longevity.

Although I firmly believe that the criticism doled out here is entirely warranted, Jeremy is essentially correct. This pony's one trick is, by my calculations, just about played, unless I start getting some mail from prominent How Appalling readers that I can't wait to allow to remain anonymous.

Update: Jeremy should be pleased that with this post, this blog has topped 2,000 words (if you count the bylines and dates).

Update 2: Jeremy apparently deleted the post that was the subject of this post, having decided (consistent with the tone of the original post) that it was really no big deal. Jeremy kindly acknowleges that the post did exist, keeping this blog from looking insane. This incident exposes the slimy underbelly of the blogging world: We constantly check our referrers to find out who's linking to us, then follow those links to find out what they are saying. I found Jeremy's post after it had been deleted, and probably wouldn't have found the overpundit post were it not for his link to it. It's a sad world.

How Appalling! No, not this fabulous blog, but the fact that this has been done before. I can't tell you how this bruises my ego. Luckily, my ego is huge, so I'll just use the non-bruised parts of it for a while until the bruised part heals. In fact, it's happening already. In fact, I think I am somehow responsible for the first incarnation of "How Appalling" as well, in a metaphysical sense if no other. See how my ego grows and absorbs all. Fear it.

Thanks to L-cubed for the pointer.

More links! To me! The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has a library which hosts a blog-like news feature, which linked to this site. Thanks, Ninth Circuit Library!

Thanks to Criminal Appeal for the link to me and the thoughtful analysis.

Now that the news is out of the way, time for some of the more important posts. Namely, two more blogs have been kind enough to link to me. Thanks to Quasi In Rem for the link, and for calling me "funny," and to SW Virginia Law Blog for the link. You guys are swell.

Today's duck hunting report. Despite his admonition that the Supreme Court can't do its work if people keep talking about it all the time, the media simply cannot stop reporting about Scalia's duck hunt, the recusal request, and the Justice's memorandum, as the articles here, here, and here show.

Today's Google search on "Supreme Court" reveals an interesting decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court, holding that parents whose children are injured by another child cannot sue that child's parents for damages, as reported by Newsday in an article you can access here. Also, the Edmonton Journal reports that "PM urged to name aboriginal to Supreme Court," in an article which begins:

There's a lobby effort underway to appoint an aboriginal judge to the Supreme Court and one name being raised is Justice Harry LaForme, the author of Canada's first ruling allowing gay marriage.

You can access the full article here.

"State considering reprimand of appellate court judge." So reports the Associated Press, in an article you can access here. In entirely unrelated news, Laura Easter of the Mt. Carmel Illinois Daily Republican Register reports, "Appellate Court Justice Gordon Maag visits Mt. Carmel," in an article you can access here.

Law From the Center notes here that a user from supreme-court.gov read his site recently. I almost forgot to note that I too have a reader at that domain. Although I don't have proof, I swear it's true. Important people read "How Appalling." Really, they do.

Update: My Supreme Court lurker returned twice today. I took a screenshot of the resolved IP address, "user.supreme-court.gov," but I don't know how to post it. Apparently, either the Justices or clerks are reading Greedy Clerks, as that's where the user was referred from.

Thanks to Boley for the link to this site and everyone else who has found "How Appalling" worthy of mention. Until next time, I wish you, my readers, all the best.

Finally, for now, thanks to Greedy Clerks poster Namaste2003 for saying such nice things about me on that board. Namaste says:

Whoever came up with this blog is a genius, it makes me laugh out loud every time I log on...I just love it...you've pegged Bashman so well. Excellent job.

A big thanks to Denise Howell for her kind link to this site, , and to the nice folks at Southern Appeal, who also linked to this site.

Bashman bashes bashers. As reported here, How Appealing has removed the Greedy Clerks board from his blogroll, perhaps in retaliation for some somewhat disparaging opinions about him posted there.

I'm getting all google-eyed. This blog is now the number one result when you google "how appalling."

Taking it to the next level. I'm sure you all are aware of my annoying habit of linking to my earlier posts whenever there is news about something I have reported on. I have now taken this to a new level. I now note my previous post about an appellate opinion even when the previous post was only a link to a news story about about an opinion. Is there no limit to what I will take credit for?

Another appellate opinion post! In this opinion, my future employer, uh, that is, I mean the Third Circuit recently held that Federal Rule of Evidence 407, which makes subsequent remedial measures inadmissible to prove causation, does not apply to measures taken by a non-party, despite the rule's passive construction of "[w]hen . . . measures are taken."

Thanks to Mr. P for his mention of this blog, to Chris Geidner of De Novo for the kind words, to dclawstudent blog and Law From the Center for their recommendations here and here.

An actual appellate opinion post. The Fourth Circuit today found that a Virginia law criminalizing the distribution of material harmful to minors over the internet is unconstitutional. Read the full opinion here. Hey, remember when my blog used to mostly be about appellate decisions and not about news about appellate opinions, or news about general legal issues, or news about me? Okay, it was always about news about me, but it was a pretty cool blog back then wasn't it?

Dancing in the Dark. USA Today reports that Federal appeals court allows nude dance on Web, while in wholly unrelated news, the Myrtle Beach Sun News reports that Three race for state Appeals Court seat. The title of this post is brought to you by my obsession with 80s music.

Today's gay marriage news: Oops, don't click on that link, I mean to say, uh, that the Boston Globe has this article on gay marriage, and the Arizona Daily Sun has this article, and the Arizona Daily Wild Cat has this article. That's right, I'm covering college newspapers. You got a problem with that?

Give me money. I have generously arranged it that all you who love me so much can now give me money. After all, if I didn't aggregate all the news out there, meticulously linking to every newspaper name, article, and editorial, how would you ever see them? Furthermore, I do all this at no benefit to myself. Okay, well maybe there is a benefit to me, but I could still use some money. I just started my own firm and all.

20 Questions for the Appalling Judge: "How Appalling" is pleased to present our first installment of "20 Questions for the Appalling Judge." In this installment, we ask 20 questions of former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore:

Roy S. Moore is a native of Etowah County, Alabama. He graduated from Etowah High School in 1965 and obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree in 1969 from the United States Military Academy at West Point. Moore then returned to Alabama where he completed his Juris Doctorate Degree in 1977 from The University of Alabama School of Law.

1. How did you come to be an appellate judge, and more importantly, how can I, Howard Bashman, become an appellate judge?

I was elected as Chief Judge of the Alabama Supreme Court based on my status as "The Ten Commandments Judge." I don't know how you can become an appellate judge, as the title of "The Ten Commandments Judge" is already taken.

2. Are you adhering to the Federal Law Clerk Hiring Plan?

Since I am no longer a judge, and since even when I was a judge I was a state court judge, I have no idea what you're talking about.

3. Do you think the 9th Circuit should be split into two circuits, and if so, what division of the two circuits do you think is most appropriate?

Somehow, I get the feeling that 20 questions is really too many for you to come up with for each judge, so you just repeat the same questions every month, regardless of whether the particular judge you are interviewing is likely to have any particular insight into the matter.

4. Imagine for a second that you weren't on a lowly state supreme court, and instead were a federal appellate judge. What circuit do you think you would like to serve on, other than the Federal Circuit?

That has got to be the most insulting question I have ever heard. I hope you haven't asked any other judges that.

5. Now imagine that I am a federal appellate judge, what circuit do you think I would sit on? I think the Third Circuit. I can't wait to have lunch with all my appellate judge colleagues. Maybe I would invite them to a sleepover. Do you think Chief Judge Scirica would play "pin the tail on the donkey"?

What I would really like to talk about is the Ten Commandments.

6. What do you think of the proposed amendment to the Rules of Civil Procedure that would allow citation to unpublished opinions? Don't you think it's a good thing? Does Alabama allow citation to unpublished opinions, and if not, why is it so stupid?

(No response)

7. If you could be an animal, what animal would you be?

(No response)

8. Is the salary paid to federal appellate judges too low? What should the salary be? Do you think the salary will be higher by the time I get to be a federal judge?

Look, I think I have already stated that I was a state judge. Maybe you're a little too obsessed with federal judges. States have appellate courts too you know. Is this another one of your canned questions?

10. - 19. Since you are most known for the controversy surrounding your placement of the Ten Commandments, which I have exhaustively covered in my blog, I will at this point in the interview, ask a bunch of qeustions about one thing that you are known for to take up space. First, is God the Lord thy God, and shall you have any God before Him? Shalt thou make any graven images? Shalt thou take the Lord's name in vain? Shalt thou remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy? Shalt thou honor thy parents? Shalt thou kill? Shalt thou commit adultury? Shalt thou steal, bear false witness against thy neighbor, or covet thy neighbor's ass?

No on all counts except honoring your parents and keeping the sabbath holy.

20. Any good places to eat in Alabama?

No.

This is a new blog devoted to me, Howard Bashman, my appellate practice, my blog, me, me, me, and also some appellate litigation. Oh and me.