I have joked about the coolest thing that could happen as a blogger is for a court to cite to one of your blog posts and rule in your favor.  That didn't happen to me (and likely surely never will), but something equally cool did.  I came across a blog written by a judge (in this case Justice) which explained why he ruled a certain way in a case I was involved with. 

A couple of years ago, I handled a case as a cooperating attorney for the ACLU which involved a challenge to Washington's false political advertising statute.  It started out with a straightforward administrative hearing.  Ultimately, the issue reached the Washington Supreme Court, which ruled in the client's favor (finding the statute unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds).   Arguing the case definitely ranks up there as one of the highlights. 

The resulting opinion was splintered to say the least.  "Sharply divided" is probably the best way to describe it.  I often wondered why certain Justices ruled the way they did.  Imagine my surprise when someone passed along a blog entry from Justice Chambers which explained his rationale for the case!  I'm not really sure how to react, except to say that it's really cool that Justice Chambers maintains a blog.  Really really cool!  And it was fun and illuminating to read his explanation.  Here's a blurb of it:

Most of the cases we hear are not easy. Ms. Rickert's case was a difficult one for me. After some deliberation, I joined the concurrence written by Justice Madsen concluding that the statute was constitutional but, on the facts of the case before us, Ms. Rickert didn't violate it. I did not say it was okay to lie. However, those who signed the majority opinion written by Justice James Johnson did so on the solid principle that the free speech may trump the State's right to regulate.

[Read the whole post here.]

Justice Chambers: welcome to the blogosphere!  You may want to consider setting up permalinks.  This would add to the blog's ability to be a part of "the conversation".  On a separate note, my instinct is that the Washington bar is pretty sensible about this stuff.  It's certainly appropriate and well within the bounds of the ethical/judicial conduct rules for a judge to maintain a blog (provided that there's no discussion on pending cases and it doesn't reflect poorly on the judiciary in any way).  However, on the off chance that the Washington Bar decides to hassle you, you know you have at least one free speech advocate in your corner.