pageok
pageok
pageok
Bring Out Your Feedback:
Are you happy with the Volokh Conspiracy? Annoyed with it? Is there something you want to see more of? Less of? Tell us all about it. Although the VC doesn't normally allow comments, I tend to like them. So I am opening up comments for this post to give you a chance to give us your 2 cents. Anonymous is okay, but any abusive, mean, or rude comments will be deleted. Comment away.

  UPDATE: Sorry for the technical problems. I'm working on them, although I don't know if I'll be able to fix them.
Scott Ferguson (mail) (www):
VC is a very cool site. It tends to cover unique topics, and usually does not simply echo the posts of other blogs.
12.7.2004 2:24pm
JimH (mail):
Overall, a good job by all the conspiritors - one of the 3 sites I read while lunching at my desk. VC is much more informative than the MSM when it comes to legal issues, and the civil tone is refreshing. (As opposed to the left2right site you referenced. One look at the sub -title about "getting through to the right" tells you what to expect.)
On the non-legal stuff, Mr. Bernstein is interesting (and again, refreshingly level headed)when discussing politics and religion.
12.7.2004 2:26pm
Erin Arlinghaus:
This is my favorite group blog. I'm a former
engineer, now at home with my kids. I have
learned so much about law by reading this blog,
and it's provided my husband and I with
nearly endless source material for dinner
table arguments. :-) Almost makes me want to
go to law school. Maybe in ten years, when my
PhD is completely outdated and I'm ready to
go back to work.

Here's what I'd like to see: links to e-mail each
of the bloggers. As far as I can
tell the only address for each one is his or
her academic department. I've been hesitant
to send comments or ask questions because it's
unclear to me whether "blog" correspondence is
welcome in each lawblogger's university inbox.
The only "policy on email" published on the
blog appears to be Eugene Volokh's. Don't you each
have different personal policies? Or are *all*
comments to be directed through Eugene Volokh
regardless of who wrote them? I can't imagine
that you all get an equal volume of blog-
related e-mail...

I think it'd feel more user-friendly if you set up email addresses like
"randybarnett@volokh.com", etc. Or at least
have links and/or instructions on the main page
that direct us how to contact each individual
blogger with questions or comments.

That is, unless you don't *want* us to contact
you. :-)
12.7.2004 2:35pm
eponymouscoward (mail):
OK.

I'm a liberal, but I like the site. I think it's important to get more perspectives than what the liberal bloggers and NYT have to say.

At times, some of the more strident posters (Kopel and Bernstein) get under my collar and make me feel like I'm reading The NRO Corner (which I avoid, for just that reason), but I'm sure I say things that get under conservative collars too.

I especially appreciate the thoughful libertarian perspectives- it's good to see someone whith a constructive perspective about libertarian principles other than "government BAAAAD!". More Randy Barnett, please.
12.7.2004 2:36pm
Nathan:
Great site, I absolutely love it. Thanks for putting so much time and effort into this project.

One thing I particularly like is multi-part stories. It shows intellectual honesty to post follow-ups, corrections, and re-thinkings as new posts.
12.7.2004 2:38pm
gapesp (mail):
More posts should be opened to comments. Trackbacks are fine, but often times I'd like to see the discussions of the post in one place, even if the post author doesn't respond to them. The debates that go on within the comments can often be as insightful and interesting as the specific post itself. This works fine on many sites (Legal Fiction and the new Becker Posner blog are great examples), not sure why it can't be done here.
12.7.2004 2:38pm
John Robinson (mail):
Volokh.com is a great, great blog. You ought to consider keeping the comment function available permanently though. And I would add that the visual format is somewhat...bland. However, it continues to be my first stop of the morning.

Keep up the good work!
12.7.2004 2:39pm
bill (mail):
Are you just being 'humble' because you're kicking butt in the WizBang poll?? 'Fess up!
12.7.2004 2:46pm
T. Manning (mail):
This is one of my favorite sites (along with Howard Bashman's). The individual voices are distinct, but complement each other well. One question, could Michelle Boardman or Phillippe de Croy, for example, be convicted as a member of The Volokh Conspiracy? Or would their lack of posting be considered sufficient evidence of withdrawal?

By the way, Orin, we were summer associates together at WC&P, and I am glad to know you are doing so well.
12.7.2004 2:53pm
pete (mail) (www):
Not much I would change about your site and I have been a regular reader for about 2 years. As much as I like comments I think they are in general a bad idea if you have a site as popular as yours and if you open comments up you will spending a lot of time regulating them.

As far as content goes, I like your focus of various fairly rational libertarian ideas. I also liked your reader submission posts a few months back, your focus on individual court cases, and your perspectives on academic life.
12.7.2004 2:56pm
von (mail) (www):
I will attempt to avoid gushing like a schoolgirl. Or schoolboy. Or schoolperson. Or whomever typically does the gushing these days.

Y'all are great. Indeed, there's not a single conspirator whom I dislike reading, and each new addition has been outstanding. My only suggestion is that you consider adding an IP guy or gal -- someone who can write with knowledge on patents, copyrights, etc. It's the hot thing, don'tchaknow. (Written, admittedly, by a guy whose practice is 60% patent litigation -- so understand the bias of the above-signed proponent.)

My best -- and my apologies, incidentally, if a regular Volokh conspirator is an IP guy or gal. I musta missed it.

*I'm even warming to the wine wars
12.7.2004 2:58pm
Graeme Williams:
I'm delighted with the Conspiracy! More, please!

As someone without legal training, I appreciate the clarity of the entries on the site, but could I ask for a little more? I've been following the wine wars as closely as I can, but "antidiscrimination prong of the dormant commerce clause" went straight over my head. I know what I'm asking for means more work for someone, but would some sort of glossary link or pop-up be possible for less well-known legal terms?

Also, I appreciate the "Related posts" section that links together a series of posts on the same topic, such as the Basketbrawl. Is there some mechanism which would allow the reader to review them in chronological order?

Graeme dot Williams at excite dot com
12.7.2004 2:59pm
Bryan (mail):
Love the VC! Keep it up.
12.7.2004 3:00pm
SayUncle (mail) (www):
I read the blog through a feed. It seems that the feed updates at random when you post new things. If you post a new post, the feed shows up to seven posts (the new one and six old ones). Kind of annoying that I see the stuff twice.

Other than, I really like the site. Keep it up.
12.7.2004 3:16pm
devin chalmers (mail):
The only thing I don't like is that ugly law.com network affiliate banner that appeared a few weeks ago. My ad blocking software doesn't show it to me anymore, though, so it's not that bad.

One concrete suggestion, I would add a CSS rule to clear:all the opening bits of each article. I notice now that pictures are sometimes posted at the end of articles, they are floated to the right and end up looking more like they're part of the next story. The clear rule would keep the picture from floating in that area (or really, keep the article from showing up where the picture is floating). I haven't checked to see if this is still a problem, maybe it's been fixed since.

Anyway, love the VC, it is definitely the standard-bearer of worthwhile weblogging in my mind. I am a raging liberal/left-libertarian, and I find the VC instrumental in helping me keep my head on a variety of issues. Keep doing those law-professory analysisamajiggy stuff-type things you all do so well.
12.7.2004 3:24pm
Saxdrop (mail) (www):
A great blog indeed! VC has assembled a fine group of scholars, able to comment intelligently on a wide array of subjects. But most importantly, and perhaps what moves it along most consistently, is the intermittment additions about humorous pop culture or major news pieces.

Being able to not take oneself too seriously (is that possible, or should it be "being able to take oneself unseriously?") enhances even the sharpest mind.
12.7.2004 3:34pm
Glen (mail) (www):
I preferred the old layout, with the text in the middle and columns on the sides. I agree with a previous commenter that the Law.com banner is ugly and annoying. I also don't need to see the endless list of archives -- just one link to an archives page would do.

I think group blogs are great, but I think this one's gotten too large. I think I more pared-down group of maybe 6 frequent bloggers would be better.
12.7.2004 3:49pm
Aeon J. Skoble (mail):
I've been a VC reader since Day 1, and it remains essential daily reading for me, and, when I'm teaching phil of law, my students. Keep up the good work.
But since you asked - I preferred the layout with the blogroll on the left side of the page - less carpal strain that way.
12.7.2004 3:57pm
fling93 (www):
I think comments would be great, but at the very least, I'd very much like to see better support of trackback pings. Technorati is all well and good, but it's not as convenient for readers, who have to click and then wait. Besides, who knows if Technorati will still be around in a few years? I think inline trackback pings are best, like Marginal Revolution does.

I think the content is great! Could use more balance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but I guess this is understandable given the makeup of the group.

Just make sure Jacob Levy eventually does come back from his leave!
12.7.2004 3:59pm
Aeon J. Skoble (mail):
I've been a VC reader since Day 1, and it remains essential daily reading for me, and, when I teach phil of law, my students. Keep up the good work.

But, since you asked, I preferred the layout with the blogroll on the left side of the page - less carpal strain that way.
12.7.2004 4:01pm
A.S.:
Admit it, Orin, you just opened comments to hear the adulation. Well, count me in - I too love the VC.

A comment with regard to e-mails. Most of you use your work e-mail addresses. As mentioned by someone above, that makes me a bit reluctant to e-mail you, since I wouldn't want to interrupt your "real" work. I wonder what your thoughts are about using separate e-mail addresses: would it make your responses less timely or would it be more cumbersome to check another e-mail address? Or maybe my concern about interrupting "real" work is uncommon, and therefore new addresses wouldn't be helpful? (I note that I have e-mailed a couple of you, and almost always received a response, which I'm grateful for. So maybe I'm just being dumb in my reluctance to e-mail you.)

As to content: I find most interesting your analyses of war-related cases (including Patriot Act issues), since they usually differ from the typical analyses I see in major media. More please!
12.7.2004 4:02pm
Bruce Hayden (mail):
Love VC. Only thing that I might change is enabling comments more often. If you did it too regularly, I think that you might get too many trolls and the like.

The problem is that at least I feel like commenting on at least some topics, such as Eugene's discussion on gay marriage, or the discussion on anti-semitism, etc. And instead of clogging up the appropriate conspirator's mailbox with my comments, I could do it more openly, and, hopefully, with less disruption to the poor conspirators who are, I would guess, getting deluged with such comments these days.

One way of potentially controlling comments is by limiting who can register - such as real people, and then have them removed from the allowed list if too disruptive.
12.7.2004 4:03pm
Mike Marino (mail):
I really enjoy this blog - it's one of my must-reads every day. The mix of law, observations on politics and political philosophy, as well as the occasional song lyric or pop-culture item is just right. You guys do a fantastic job explaining complex issues in a way that's informative and entertaining. It's truly one of the great innovations of the internet, and blogs like this in particular, that an ordinary person can have real-time access to some of the foremost legal thinking in the world!

Keep up the great work!
12.7.2004 4:39pm
Byrd (mail) (www):
Excellent site. My only complaint is: no comments.

I've emailed Conspirators only a few times, many more times I've let questions and observations go unpursued because I feel like I'm intruding on your personal lives when emailing
12.7.2004 4:45pm
Byrd (mail) (www):
Great site. There's enough adulation here that I'm going to focus on two complaints

1) The new layout--with the ads, whenever I try to narrow the window, the text gets squeezed. So I have to read you on broad-window; which is inconvenient because I'm usually at work trying to do other things at the same time.

2) No comments. I've emailed a few times, but most questions and observations get abandoned, unpursued. That's because, with email-only responses, I feel like I'm invading your personal space. With a comments section, that problem goes away.
12.7.2004 4:54pm
Crime & Federalism (mail) (www):
I generally don't like comments on political blogs. But I think having comments enabled on posts discussing "pure" law would be very interesting. My Individual Rights prof. had a similar system.

People could talk their heads off about Matthews v. Eldrige, why mid-level scrutiny might benefit women more than strict scrutiny, and whether some provisions of the Civil Rights Amendments empower Congress to reach private discrimination, to the extent blacks wear "badges of slavery" by suffering this discrimination.

But he did not open the class for discussion when we talked about the U Mich. cases and the Roe/Casey line of cases. Why not? Because a bunch of people would have opined about affirmative action and abortion as such instead of sticking to the legal issues. I'm glad because I hate those types of discussions. They're generally unproductive (and they're a trap for the conservative student, who will ultimately be branded a "racist" or "misogynist" by the end of class.

I think a similar format would be nice here, though then non-legal eagles might feel left out. Boy - I'm sure I don't have "problems" like these at my blog. ;^>

Also, sometimes the law.com ad "moves" (I'm using Firefox) to the top or right side of the screen, making the VC almost unreadable.

I have a similar problem reading the VC through Bloglines as the other fellow who commented.

Also, why don't you all have TrackBack pings? Sure, it might give some knuckleheads the chance to attract readers from your blog, but shouldn't it be my choice, as a reader, whether I want to read people discussing the VC? A good writer writes for the reader, after all.

I enjoy the VC immensely. I especially enjoy OK's PATRIOT Act "apologetics." The left gives me ranting crap (and never gives me statutory langugae for me to read). The hard right gives me more crap, again, without providing me with any substantive analysis. OK is in the middle, that is, he actually presents legal arguments that must be addressed.

Mike
12.7.2004 4:55pm
Josh McClain (mail) (www):
Big fan of VC.

My only request is a small, technical one.

I get your site on my RSS feed and whenever you click directly on it, it takes you to only that post. You have the home "link" buried toward the bottom of the page. Many types of blog software allows you to make the header graphic a link, and if you click on it it takes you back to the "home" site.

Like I said it's a small thing, but I notice it every day after I click in one of your stories from my RSS reader, finish reading it, then have to hunt out your link to take you back to your home page.

Thanks guys, I wouldn't change anything else. Enjoy it immensely.
12.7.2004 5:11pm
cannon fletcher (mail) (www):
well... i think you all do a good job of bringing to light some real issues in law and life... i tend to enjoy it... something i think that has been fascinating for anyone whether they like rap or not has been the rise of Kanye West - a producer/rapper who has transformed some careers but was told his lyrics to "Jesus Walks" would never get played... well they are all over the airwaves and will be on 60 minutes on wednesday... here's the link...

and here's the video...

enjoy

- cannon

doggtown.blogspot.com
12.7.2004 5:11pm
Charles (mail):
No. More. Wine. Wars.

Please.
12.7.2004 5:16pm
Greedy Clerk (mail):
Best blog on the web. But some of the new posters, how shall I say this, add little to the blog. See short descriptionthis thread from Greedy Clerks, and read the responses.
12.7.2004 5:34pm
Greedy Clerk (mail):
Best blog on the web. But some of the new posters, how shall I say this, add little to the blog. See short descriptionthis thread from Greedy Clerks, and read the responses.
12.7.2004 5:35pm
Greedy Clerk (mail):
Best blog on the web. BUT some of the newest posters --- how shall I say this --- do not add anything but hackery to the blog.

See this thread from Greedy Clerks.
12.7.2004 5:37pm
Exhausted (mail):
I think all the poster would do well to try and show their softer sides once in a while. Let the world see how kind and giving you are! Give your criminal law students good grades on their finals. Who says the average grade canít be an A-?
12.7.2004 6:01pm
Edward (mail):
Iíve been with VC since the beginning. Some thoughts:

The average post quality seems to have gone down over time. I think this has to do with blogger movement. Losing Levy hurt, as did Cowenís decision to start his own (fabulous) blog. Zywicki has been an interesting but limited addition and the site misses Barnett posting more regularly. The way I see it, VC at its best: Volokh, Kerr, Levy, Cowen, Barnett, and Zywicki. Lindgren doesnít bring much to the table other than a seemingly smug attitude. Juan Non posts sometimes seem to reflect the fact that he is not accountable to many for what he writes (e.g. recent posts on basketball). Bernstein only posts if he can either (1) frame the topic in a way that has something to do with his book, or (2) involves Jews. The latter, Iím sure, many find interesting, but at the expense of having to deal with obsessive mentions of his book?

A big problem, I think, is that the site has become increasingly political. Despite its reputation for having a libertarian bent, though, it reads much like a right leaning blog. The Chief goes at both sides, but itís no secret which political party he contributes to. Most other political posters are more of the same, with posts that have some (usually covert) criticism of the left. To be sure, they leave the serious left bashing to Bainbridge et al., but itís there nonetheless.

Honestly, although I read every day and enjoy it much, I think the blog much overrated. To be fair, I think a lot of blogs are overrated. People make noise over names not content. Bainbridge, for example, says little of substance (usually just ďhehĒ and ďyepĒ) but gets respect because of his scholarly reputation. We are seeing this to the extreme now with the Becker-Posner blog. As for group blogs in this genre (law, political, economic), I think Marginal Revolution and Crescat (when the crew joins in with Baude) to be the best substantively. I think this could change if there were some force moving VC back to where it was.
12.7.2004 6:04pm
Exhausted (mail):
I think all the posters would do well to try and show their softer sides once in a while. Let the world see how kind and giving you are! Give your criminal law students good grades on their finals. Who says the average grade canít be an A-?
12.7.2004 6:07pm
right in the middle with you (mail):
I recognize that most of you identify as rightist libertarians and not the leftist sort, but all the same, I think you let a lot of whoppers on the right fly by. it'd be refreshing to see you, all of you highly intelligent, invest a little more energy in critiquing your own corner. your well-known intellectual heft could bring a lot of development and refinement to mainstream conservative ideology. andrew sullivan is just barely a conservative anymore, and you all seem poised to inherit the 'center-left's favorite conservative' award.

david brooks is a little... fuzzy?
12.7.2004 6:37pm
taryl cabot (mail) (www):
My 3 feedbacks are:

It would be nice if each of the VC used a different colour to blog or perhaps a different font. I know your names are with each posting, but it sure would be nice to quickly/easily see who is who - a few months back, Volokh wrote that you can click somewhere on the site to just see any Conspirator's postings (similar to Crooked Timber), but i honestly don't see that feature on your site.

Agree on the wine wars, and I'm someone who's miffed that i had to break to law when sending a couple thank you bottles of wine to a friend in manhattan. When Wine Wars reached part XVII that was too much for me.

My favourite posting of yours concerned the typewriter used for the forged memos - I also thought the issue was flogged to death &there were more important issues to cover.
12.7.2004 7:02pm
A.S.:
A few more comments:

The search engine ain't all that great. When you get results, it's hard to pick out the correct post because you don't get enough context (you need something like Lexis's "VK +/- 25" command, where you can change the amount of context you get in your search results).

I'm glad that you added the law.com ad. You deserve something for the time you put into this (more than the occasional tip jar). And I'm getting used to the new formatting.
12.7.2004 7:20pm
AlexanderKerdman (mail):
Dear VC:

I have been a faithful reader for over a year. Your blog helped me discover my inner lawyer, come out of the closet, and enroll at a certain NY law school that Eugene recently visited.

I particularly appreciate your refreshingly multidimensional political positions.

I would like to see more specific-issue guest-blogging, like the excellent recent series on race-conscious law school admission policies.

And now, back to my Torts Outline. See you after the finals.
12.7.2004 9:13pm
Milbarge (mail) (www):
1. I have comments on my little(r) blog, but I don't think they would work here, except for very occasional things like this post. The VC has always been good about posting quality reader feedback, and they wouldn't be posting if they minded the "intrusion on their real lives," as one commenter had it.

2. I agree with others here that the search feature is not very helpful -- I have much better luck finding VC sites with regular googling than with your engine.

3. Anything else I could say would just be a quibble. Overall, I think the VC is great. Thanks for all the work you folks put in.
12.7.2004 11:21pm
Patterico (mail) (www):
Great site.

My main complaint is the layout. You guys have changed things so that there is only a narrow column on the left for the text of the post. This is very annoying. Please revert back to your previous layout.

I have no dispute with the content, and if I did, who cares? You write about what you want to write about. Eugene is great. I can't emulate his even-handedness but I find it admirable. I like Juan Non-Volokh's concentration on the character of the judiciary, and was happy to help get this blog get its recent Instalanche.

I'd love comments, but I understand a reluctance to have them, especially with a popular site such as this. Again, this is up to you folks.

But for Pete's sake, fix this layout. It's awful.
12.8.2004 2:06am
Travis (mail) (www):
There is one navigational aspect that has been bugging me for some time. I can't visit a single-post-page like this one page on which I'm now commenting (http://volokh.com/posts/1102445250.shtml) and choose "next" (or "previous") to navigate to other posts. Most other blogs have such links and I find them useful.
12.8.2004 3:35am
Rob (www):
The page load is often delayed by law.com. They might just be having a few bad weeks, but law.com has been less responsive than my cat. And since its scripts are loaded before any content is displayed (images are easy to turn off), you're at their mercy.

As a temp fix, I aliased their servers to 127.0.0.1. But that probably cuts in on ad revenue. If they buff up their servers (or you move the script loads below the content), please post a notice.


To each conspirator: thank you. I can never predict what matter you'll be talking about on my next visit, such is the diversity of opinions and subjects covered. But it's always of the highest quality. I'd like to read more from each of you.
12.8.2004 6:41am
HenryClay (mail):
That advertisement is fouling up the "first look" at the page. It overlays the text to its left, forcing me to close my bookmarks panel just to read the first post. I've found it much less pleasant to visit the site since you added it.

And it looks more than a little tacky and unprofessorial, I feel compelled to add....
12.8.2004 9:38am
RPS (mail):
No comments please. If I wanted to read what Joe-On-The-Street thought, I'd read Joe's blog. But seriously, while some comments would certainly be interesting, I think the number of uninsightful ones plus the unnecessary ones (See Greedy Clerk above) would outweigh the benefit of the useful ones.

It seems like over the past few weeks this has become the Eugene and Orin Show. Not that I don't enjoy your postings, I do, but one of the things that has made this blog so good in the past is the different personalities that it brought to the table. I looked over the past two weeks and was surprised at how little anyone else has contributed (maybe Jaun aside, and I do like the basketball posts, but if they are just news updates I could do without - I have ESPN for that. I would have been interested in a take on the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement and whether it allowed for an arbitrator. Moot now and I know we don't have sports law experts, but we can all read the language and speculate).

In the end, I'd like to see the addition of another active blogger or two or even three, whether through guest blogging, permanent additions, or rousting current inactives.
12.8.2004 12:00pm
Tibor Machan (mail) (www):
I sent a post to Eugene about the point that objecetivity is impeded by the editorial need to prune materials because of space limitations. This can be a copout--such pruning itself can be done objectively or whimsically or randomly (i.e., irresponsibly). (For more on this, see the relevant chapter in my book Objectivity [Ashgate, 2004].)
12.8.2004 12:50pm
biztheclown:
I am far left of the democratic party. This is one of the only right of center blogs that I read, and I appreciate the way the conspirators illustrate the legal issues presented. I especially enjoy the constitutional law and supreme court coverage, as I feel that the conspirators have a knack for conveying the important information to an intelligent audience without a legal background. I agree that the loss of Levy was disappointing, and I hope he returns.

I found the "likudnik" posts to be incredibly disheartening. In fact, everything this blog writes about Israel is profoundly depressing. It falls into the "criticism of the Likud is antisemitism" school that is so popular and so damaging.

In fact, I would like to see the posters take on the problems of their own side more forcefully. In what way does the somewhat libertarian viewpoint of the posters allow them to agree with the party of majoritarian religious coercion so often? Aren't they embarrased by Judge Moore from Alabama? Anti-evolution book stickering in Georgia? Foolish "Christian Nation" talk from so many leaders of their ruling coaltion?
12.8.2004 1:54pm
Huck (mail):
Being a German living in Germany, I find your blog quite interesting. It gives profound information about some genuine political and juridical thinking in the USA.

It is one of four U.S. blogs I have bookmarked.

I see not much points to improve. I personally would like more discussion of really different basic ideas than of very special aspects of needle-dancing angels , but that's my 2 cents from abroad.
12.8.2004 1:59pm
taryl cabot (mail) (www):
I have 4 (5) feedbacks:

I wish VC members used different colour fonts or there was an easy to use filter like Crooked Timber - Eugene mentioned there was a filter so you could just look at one person's writings, but it does not jump out at me (looked honest) like it does at CT.

Also of the believe that wine wars have been beaten to death &I'm someone who had to break the law to send a couple bottles of "thank you" wine to a host in the East Village. Keep us informed, but Wine Wars, part XVII had me groaning.

In agreement that Bernstein is too strident - you can always perceive an insult, or find a real insult, against Jews if you want, but Bernstein seems to go out of his way to take offense.

Thought your best post was on the bro-ha-ha concerning the CBS memos &the font used. Remember that you had asked for some feedback on issues from right wingers, but then I was hoping for you to post a "Top 10 Responses" - may have missed it, but certainly never noticed it.

Enjoy your site - you're 1 of 13 i've bookmarked (yes i am an addict of the blogosphere).

frankly a.
12.8.2004 4:25pm
Ric:
I do not like the layout of the web page any longer. Used to be good. Now that you have hooked up with law dot com, it is poor. That of course can be easily fixed.

The RSS feed works great, so don't change that!

Content is excellent, I appreciate the insites and unique information. Your presentation is not too far over my head either - but you don't dumb down your arguements.

I also appreciate posts when you give me a reason to follow a link instead of a 'see this' type link.


Volokh Conspiracy is on my must read list daily.
12.8.2004 4:43pm
Bruce:
Agree with several of the comments above:

1) This is a conservative blog liberals (e.g., me) can read without suffering excessively high blood pressure.

2) No next or previous buttons on the individual archived posts

3) Occasional comment opportunities would be nice
12.8.2004 11:53pm