I've just archived a copy of this PDF for reading later.

http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue6/RLee.pdf

Attorneys have been arguing cases before SCOTUS since we had one to argue before! Now, more than ever, ordinary people along with legal professionals are exhibiting a potential influence on the court, without being a formal part of the process.

My initial feeling about this is that is good. However, I expect this PDF to be a good read. The flip side of the coin is we need our high court to deliberate without these outside noises.

Also worth consideration is us being able to take the information presented to the court, analyze it, and gain understanding of how the court works. Having that info available in a structured way helps with this.

Say a justice has a dinner party and brings up a case under consideration. Those opinions influence the court, right? Ethically, there have always been problems with that.

Blogging reaches right into the court, with few to no ethical considerations right now.

Should that change?

The implications of this line of thinking could extend to Internet speech regulations of all kinds. Or, it might be that we just accept it, and move on.

Not sure, but I find this topic interesting.