The Post's New Law Blog

I finally got around to taking a look at the Washington Post's new law blog, Bench Conference (gee, no similarity in the name at all to any established blog). Afterwards, I felt a lot better about our humble site. No matter its flaws, our blog will never host discourse like this representative sample on the proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:

And even if the amendment somehow miraculously passed through Congress and the states it is not at all clear that such a change to the Constitution would survive a court challenge, even with a solidly conservative Supreme Court in charge. There is a reason that smart judges around the country have had problems with same-sex marriage bans. They are not always and on their face legal.

Here's a quick refresher on Con Law: if a proposed amendment gets passed by 2/3's of each house of Congress and 3/4's of the states, it becomes part of the Constitution. Period. The amendment could institute limburger as the national cheese, to be consumed at all official functions, and it would still be a valid amendment. The "judges" the Post's blogger refers to are some who have addressed various proposed amendments to various state constitutions, which often have somewhat less straightforward (if also often less onerous) methods of amendment.

I normally dislike those who take potshots at other sites, and try to refrain from doing so myself, but the Post's blog is simply filled with shoddy and silly pieces of legal analysis like the one quoted above. The Post is and remains an excellent source for legal news, but their new law opinion blog is an embarrassment.