Creating a "No-Nlog-Zone" for judicial clerks makes about as much sense as saying associates should not be able to blog, a topic addressed in my blog. Not sure why lawyers, the protectors of our constitutional rights, are supposed to forego their first amendment right on all issues because of their current role in society.

I understand that a clerk should be refrain from discussing certain things and should abide by similar ethical rules and guidelines as a judge. But to carve out a rule because no one has time to understand what a blog may be that just says - nope, can't have you expressing opinions because you are ‘clerk’ does not make much sense.

This type of logic has created a huge chasm between average Americans and those employed in the legal profession. Most lawyers, judges, clerks, law professors or who have you do not take time to communicate with the public. The result is people distrust the legal system and lawyers in general.

I would think a blog maintained by a clerk as to what the appellate court does, how cases are addressed etc. that would be read by the public, law students, the media and lawyers would be great.

Yeah, that would be great. So long as the clerk did not discuss any cases pending before the court, or give away information that might compromise the privacy of chambers, or inadvertently reveal something that might damage or compromise one side or another in a pending litigation, or create the impression that he (the clerk) could be influenced in some way by counsel (such as in comments or through the purchase of advertising), or otherwise give people reasons to question the impartiality of the Judge or his chambers' decision making process. But yeah, otherwise it would be great.