"Mr. Drudge 'effectively invented clickbait,' wrote the Columbia Journalism Review."

"Frank Rich, writing in The Times in 1999, said he was a 'grandstander whom many, I included, once feared as the Devil of journalism incarnate.'... [Journalist Matthew Lysiak, author of 'The Drudge Revolution'] said in an interview that rival websites are 'licking their chops — they see blood in the water.' But he noted that there may be another factor in Drudge Report’s recent loss of traffic: the rise of social media. 'Matt Drudge was always first at everything, but not anymore, not even close — Twitter’s first,' Mr. Lysiak said. 'For years now, people have been wondering who the next Drudge is, but it isn’t a person. It’s a social media revolution, and he sees that writing on the wall.' But Mr. Drudge has a deep desire, and a talent, for staying relevant, Mr. Lysiak said. Betting big on Mr. Trump did the trick in 2016. Betting against him could work this time around. Mr. Lysiak suggested that readers who expected Mr. Drudge’s site to stay true to one line of political thought were misguided. 'In reality, while Matt Drudge has his own personal political opinions, his website has absolutely no loyalty to any political party or ideology,' he said. 'Now he’s thinking long-term, really putting his political capital on a Biden candidacy. And if that happens, he will once again weaponize his site on behalf of more conservative causes.'"

From "Drudge Report, a Trump Ally in 2016, Stops Boosting Him for 2020/A rift between the president and the online news pioneer Matt Drudge is playing out in pithy headlines and needling tweets as the campaign heats up" (NYT).

But wait... didn't you hear that Matt Drudge sold The Drudge Report (and that's why it changed)? Here's "Matt Drudge rumored to be seeking investors for Drudge Report" (NY Post)(also quoting Lysiak):

Does the ABA Journal shed any new light on last year's troubles in the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

Well, there's new junk commentary from far-off observers, like this:

Also, it’s possible that some of [Chief Justice Shirley] Abrahamson’s colleagues have had problems taking directions from a woman, says Deborah Rhode, a Stanford Law School professor whose work focuses on gender, law and public policy. She notes that many studies suggest women in leadership positions face trade-offs that men don’t.

“What’s assertive in a man is abrasive in a woman,” Rhode says, mentioning a report on women in leadership roles by Catalyst, a nonprofit group that focuses on expanding opportunities for women in business. It surveyed female executives, and many of them attributed some of their success to finding a management style that made men feel comfortable.

Speaking of things that are "possible"... it's possible to say something more generic about the relations between men and women in the workplace.

And there's this from Leah Ward Sears, the former chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court:

“You have to know when to hold them, and know when to fold them. Sometimes people don’t know when to walk away... Because everybody is a sovereign state... sometimes you have to push hard, because some justices can be bullies. But that doesn’t mean you choke anyone or push anyone out the window.”

Noted.

"You have embarrassing material in your supposedly professional journal that is out there festering right now."

"And I really don't care about amends you 'may' make next year."

ABA Journal, listing 100 law blogs, identifies 2 as "conservative" and none as "liberal."

The 2 identified as conservative are mine and Volokh Conspiracy.

Do you find that odd?

ADDED: Here's email I sent in response to email sent to me by an ABA Journal editor:

Thanks for responding.

Your description of my blog is embarrassingly inaccurate. What "altercation" are you even talking about? The one where I was filming other people arguing and a man suddenly assaulted me? You portray me as jumping at every chance to say conservative things, but I've blogged about why I voted for Obama, written continually in support of same-sex marriage since the first month of my blog, written in support of abortion [rights], and many, many other things that challenge conservative readers. And my comments section has many liberal readers who argue with the conservatives. I resent the crude label, which wasn't imposed on any other bloggers.

You "admire" my blog, but you don't know much about it. As for "reader engagement," I believe you do admire/envy that, and I think that is why I was included on the list. I have the capacity to send traffic to your website, which, I would assume, is the main reason you do a top 100 list and set up a voting process.

I am not impressed. And I really don't care about amends you "may" make next year. You have embarrassing material in your supposedly professional journal that is out there festering right now.